UC-NRLF 


$B    2T3    ^76 


^i«atWii>^^ 


C^ re- ♦30 


<r 


■■     /"      REESE  LIBRARY 


OK    THE 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA. 

Received ^^^u£jU      ,  iSS' 


Accessions  No.  O^-^  ^'^C)    Shelf  No. 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  witii  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.archive.org/details/fourtligospelquesOOclarricli 


THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 


THE  QUESTION  OF  ITS  ORIGIN  STATED 
AND   DISCUSSED 


JAMES    FREEMAN    CLARKE 


BOSTON 

GEO.   H.   ELLIS,    I4I    FRANKLIN   STREET 
1886 


COPYRIGHT, 

BY  GEORGE   H.   ELLIS, 

1886, 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH 
GOSPEL. 

The  problem  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  this ; 
how  could  a  Gospel  proceeding  from  John,  one 
of  the  companions  and  apostles  of  Jesus,  give  a 
view  of  his  character  and  life  differing  in  many 
ways  from  that  of  the  other  three  evangelists? 
On  the  other  hand,  if  it  was  not  written  by  John, 
but  by  some  later  author,  how  could  it  have  been 
universally  received  in  the  early  Church  as  gen- 
uine and  authentic,  and  no  trace  of  opposition  to 
it  be  found  in  all  Christendom,  from  Egypt  to 
Gaul  ?  If  it  gives  uS  a  Gnostic  Jesus  or  an  Alex- 
andrian Jesus,  and  not  the  Jesus  of  Palestine,  its 
universal  reception  is  all  the  more  unaccount- 
able. 

This  is  the  problem  which  has  been  discussed 
in  Germany  and  elsewhere  since  the  time  of 
Ferdinand  Christian  Baur,  and  is  yet  an  unset- 
tled question.  I  shall  give  the  arguments  on 
both  sides,  especially  those  which  proceed  from 


4      THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

such  opponents  of  the  Johannine  origin  of  the 
Gospel  as  Baur  himself,  John  James  Tayler  and 
Albert  Rdville ;  and,  more  recently,  as  they  are 
summed  up  by  Holtzmann  in  his  Historical  and 
Critical  Introduction  to  the  New  Testa?nent  (Frei- 
burg, 1885),  and  by  Dr.  Abbott  in  the  Encyclo- 
paedia Britannica. 

We  will  first  consider  the  objections  to  the 
authorship  of  John,  as  given  some  years  since 
in  the  very  able  work  of  Mr.  Tayler,  formerly 
principal  of  Manchester  New  College,  London. 
This  book  is  called  An  Attempt  to  ascertain  the 
Character  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  But  it  is  not  so 
much  an  examination  as  an  argument.  It  is  a 
fair  and  honest  attempt  to  disprove  the  apostolic 
authorship  of  the  Gospel ;  and  it  sums  up  the 
reasons  for  rejecting  it,  as  given  by  Baur  and 
others  down  to  1867.  In  considering  Mr.  Tay- 
ler's  arguments,  we  shall  know  the  strongest 
points  that  could  be  made  against  the  received 
opinion  at  the  time  when  Mr.  Tayler  wrote; 
and  perhaps,  even  now,  there  is  no  one  book 
which  states  and  summarizes  them  so  well. 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 


Mr.  Tayler  first  describes  the  evident  differ- 
ence between  the  three  Synoptic  Gospels  and  the 
Fourth,  as  regards  the  scene  of  Christ's  labors, 
the  form  of  his  teachings,  the  events  mentioned, 
and  the  resulting  view  of  the  character  of  Christ 
himself.  He  thinks  that  John's  Gospel  is  not  so 
much  another  as  a  different  Gospel  from  those 
of  the  Synoptics.  Considering  it  impossible  that 
the  Fourth  Gospel  and  the  Apocalypse  should 
have  been  written  by  the  same  author,  he  de- 
cides in  favor  of  the  authenticity  of  the  latter. 
The  references  to  the  Apostle  John  in  Script- 
ure and  ecclesiastical  tradition  show,  in  his 
opinion,  that  John  belonged  to  the  Jewish  sec- 
tion of  the  Christian  Church,  to  which,  plainly, 
the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  does  not  be- 
long. The  external  testimonies  to  the  apos- 
tolic authorship  of  the  Gospel  do  not  begin  to 
be  satisfactory  till  toward  the  end  of  the  sec- 
ond century.  The  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  he 
thinks,  could  not  have  been  blended  so  inti- 
mately with  Christianity  at  an  early  period  as  it 
appears  in  this  book.  In  the  apologists  of  the 
second  century,  indeed,  he  finds  this  Logos  doc- 


6     THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

trine  fully  accepted  ;  but,  in  the  writings  of  Paul, 
instead  of  the  "Logos"  we  have  the  "Spirit." 
But  his  chief  reason  for  rejecting  the  Gospel  as 
apostolic  is  from  its  position  in  regard  to  the 
time  of  the  Last  Supper.  The  three  Synoptics 
place  it  on  the  fourteenth  of  Nisan,  on  the  day 
of  the  Passover;  but  John  puts  it  on  the  day 
before,  and  fixes  the  crucifixion  on  the  Passover. 
That  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  wrong  here,  Mr.  Tay- 
ler  thinks  evident ;  and  that,  therefore,  it  could 
not  be  written  by  John,  who  was  incapable  of 
such  a  mistake,  and  whose  authority  was  ap- 
pealed to  in  Ephesus  in  favor  of  the  other  date. 
For  such  reasons  as  these,  he  considers  himself 
compelled  to  deny  the  apostolic  authorship  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel.  Who  was  really  the  writer 
he  is  unable  to  say ;  but  he  is  convinced  that  it 
was  some  one  who  was  living  and  writing  before 
the  middle  of  the  second  century, —  certainly  be- 
fore the  death  of  Papias  in  A.D.  163,  and  prob- 
ably after  A.D.  135.  He  differs  from  Dr.  Baur, 
who  considers  it  of  Alexandrine  origin,  since  he 
regards  the  uniform  tradition  of  the  Church  in 
favor  of  Ephesus  conclusive  as  to  the  place  of  its 
composition. 

The   Fourth   Gospel,   therefore,   according  to 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL     7 

Mr.  Tayler,  "belongs  to  the  primitive  age  of 
Christianity,  and  cannot  be  brought  lower  than 
the  first  half  of  the  second  century."  Never- 
theless, he  does  not  consider  it  as  the  work  of 
imposture  :  partly  because  it  does  not  speak  of 
John  as  its  author  till  the  last  chapter,  which  he 
holds  to  be  a  later  addition ;  and,  also,  because 
the  book  is  really  filled  with  the  current  of  spir- 
itual life  which  came  from  Jesus.  His  work  ends 
with  an  attempt  to  show  that  Baron  Bun  sen  was 
wrong  in  saying  that,  if  John's  Gospel  is  not 
authentic,  there  can  be  no  historical  Christ  and 
no  Christian  -Church.  On  the  other  hand,  Mr. 
Tayler  asserts  that  Christianity  is  not  damaged 
by  the  results  of  this  criticism,  and  that  we  lose 
nothing  in  discovering  that  the  Fourth  Gospel 
was  not  the  work  of  an  apostle,  but  of  an  un- 
known writer  at  Ephesus,  in  the  second  century. 
Let  us  next  consider  the  subsequent  history  of 
this  question,  and  the  present  state  of  opinion 
among  the  critics  of  Germany,  as  given  in  Holtz- 
mann's  recent  book  (1885).  Holtzmann  is  one 
of  the  leading  theologians  of  the  school  of  Baur ; 
and,  like  Mr.  Tayler  and  Reville,  he  rejects  the 
Johannine  authorship.  We  may  thus  depend  on 
his  giving  full  weight  to  the  objections  to  the 
received  opinion. 


8     THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

Holtzmann,  though  admitting  that  the  Fourth 
Gospel  has  a  right  to  be  accepted  as  a  Gospel, 
gives  the  following  reasons  for  his  own  view. 

The  prologue  to  John  contains  the  only  pas- 
sage in  the  Gospel  which  treats  of  the  pre-exist- 
ence  and  eternal  being  of  Jesus,  and  differs 
wholly  in  its  tone  from  the  Synoptic  Gospels 
(Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke, —  called  Synoptic  be- 
cause all  taking  the  same  view  of  the  course  of 
events  in  the  life  of  Jesus).  In  John,  the  his- 
toric element  yields  to  the  philosophic  and  super- 
natural one.  New  historic  facts  are  introduced, 
such  as  the  words  of  the  Baptist,  the  conver- 
sations of  Jesus  with  the  Jews  and  his  disciples, 
I  — characters,  places,  situations,  not  in  the  first! 
three  Gospels.  In  these,  the  scene  of  Christ's  j 
work  is  chiefly  in  Galilee ;  in  John,  it  is  laid  at  \ 
Jerusalem.  Various  events  recorded  by  the  Syn-  j 
optics  are  omitted  in  John,  such  as  the  Temp- 
tation, the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the  Transfigu- 
ration, and  many  of  the  Synoptic  miracles,  espe- 
cially those  relating  to  demoniacal  possession. 
The  Synoptics  give  only  one  year_for  the  public 
life  of  Jesus,  but  John  requires  more.  Moreover, 
the  events  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  are  for  the  sake 
of  introducing  the  conversations,  not  for  their 


THE  PROBLEM  OF   THE  FOUK^|J^«P.9?f^fe^^jA.9y 

own  sake,  as  in  the  first  three  Gospels.  Instead 
of  popular  parables,  John's  Christ  teaches  in 
allegories.  The  teaching  of  Jesus  in  the  Synop- 
tics bears  immediately  on  earthly  life  and  human 
conduct,  that  in  John  on  more  ideal  themes. 
Jesus,  in  the  Synoptics,  teaches  moral  truth ;  in 
John,  he  inculcates  faith  in  himself.  In  John,  all 
is  in  broad  contrast  of  light  and  shadow,  of  good 
and  evil,  lacking  the  variety  of  earthly  color 
which  is  found  in  the  other  narratives.  Nor  in 
John  do  we  find  any  development  in  the  ideas  of 
Jesus,  or  any  trace  of  growth  or  of  struggle.  He 
is  perfect  from  the  first.  While  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  are  a  collection  of  single,  scarcely  con- 
nected facts,  John's  is  a  rounded  whole.  It  is 
filled  with  an  element  of  spiritual  life,  scarcely 
to  be  found  in  the  others.  These  contrasts  are 
so  difficult  to  explain  that  Holtzmann  thinks  the 
easiest  outlet  is  to  suppose  the  Fourth  Gospel 
not  the  work  of  an  original  apostle,  but  the  fruit 
of  a  long  development  of  Grecian  thought.  But 
such  is  the  variety  of  views  still  existing  among 
the  most  able  critics,  that  Holtzmann  ends  by 
declaring  the  problem  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  to 
be  more  and  more  an  open  question. 

If  those  who   attack  the   authenticity  of   the 


lO    THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

Gospel  admit  this,  its  defenders  must  make  a 
like  admission.  The  time  is  past  when  the  fol- 
lowers of  Baur  could  declare  that  the  non-apos- 
tolic authorship  of  the  Gospel  was  finally  and 
forever  settled,  and  when  the  conservatives  could 
pour  contempt  on  every  effort  to  disturb  the  re- 
ceived tradition.  Some  via  media  must  be  found. 
Those  who  contend  that  it  is  an  Alexandrian 
y^nostic  Gospel,  written  in  order  to  change  the 
faith  of  the  Church,  are  obliged  to  meet  the  in- 
superable difficulty  of  explaining  how  such  an 
apocryphal  Gospel  could  be  received  by  the 
whole  Church  as  authentic,  without  a  ripple  of 
opposition.  On  the  other  hand,  those  who  argue 
that  the  author  was  an  apostle,  who  wrote  in  full 
harmony  with  the  other  evangelists,  must  find 
some  way  to  account  for  the  different  tone  and 
color  of  this  scripture  from  the  others. 

Many  of  the  lesser  objections  may,  no  doubt, 
be  easily  answered.  Supposing  it  to  be  dictated 
by  the  aged  apostle  to  his  inquiring  disciples  at 
different  times  near  the  close  of  his  life,  we  can 
understand  why  much  should  be  omitted  with 
which  they  were  already  familiar,  and  some 
things  added  to  supply  the  deficiencies  in  exist- 
ing narratives.     These   additions   would   largely 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL         II 

consist  of  the  incidents  and  discussions  at  Jeru- 
salem, omitted  by  the  Synoptics,  who  were  more 
interested  in  events  and  practical  truths  than  in 
the  profounder  topics  which  would  arise  in  con- 
versation with  the  rabbis.  The  remarkable  in- 
troduction to  the  Fourth  Gospel  may  indicate 
that  John  found  around  him,  in  his  later  days, 
the  germs  of  the  future  Gnosticism,  and  met  these 
tendencies  with  a  larger  gnosis.  So  far  from 
teaching  the  gnostic  doctrine  that  the  "  Word," 
"  Life,"  "  Light,"  etc.,  were  separate  seons,  ema- 
nations from  the  unknown  abyss  of  being,  he 
asserts  that  "  The  Word  "  was  God  himself,  and 
not  a  being  derived  from  him.  Consequently  (as 
Ezra  Abbot  tells  us  *),  "  the  Christian  Fathers,  in 
their  contests  with  the  Gnostics,  found  therein 
an  armory  of  weapons."  Hence,  the  work  could 
scarcely  have  emanated  from  a  gnostic  writer, 
as  Hilgenfeld  and  others  suppose. 

As  the  main  attack  came  from  the  school  of 
Baur,  so  the  defence  was  championed  by  that  of 
Schleiermacher.  Holtzmann  says :  "  The  de- 
fences of  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  Fourth  Gos- 
pel rest  mostly  on  the  profound  work  of  Liicke 
(1820-1843)  and  Bleek  (1846).  Both  were  per- 
sonal friends  of  Schleiermacher.    '  The  first  waves 

*  The  Authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  p.  88. 


12     THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

of  attack  broke  against  the  mighty  influence  of 
this  theologian.'  Against  doubts  in  detail,  he 
maintained  the  power  of  the  total  impression  of 
this  Gospel,  and  declared  that  Christianity  is  in- 
explicable if  we  rest  it  solely  on  the  statements 
of  the  Synoptics, —  an  axiom  also  maintained  by 
Neander,  Bunsen,  and  Ewald." 

Holtzmann  describes  the  present  state  of  opin- 
ion as  quite  unsettled.  There  are  many  shades 
of  belief,  extending  from  those  who  hold  fast  to 
the  traditional  doctrine — as  Godet  (1876-1877), 
Keil  (1881),  Schanz  (1885),  Westcott  (1882),  and 
others  —  to  those  who  derive  the  contents  of  the 
book  from  Philo  or  the  Gnostics, —  as  Wolf, 
Havet,  R^ville,  and  Tayler.  Between  these  ex- 
tremes are  many  varieties  of  critical  judgment. 
Many  admit  a  subjective  element  by  which  the 
thoughts  of  John  are  confused  in  his  memory 
with  those  of  his  Master.  Some  maintain  that 
most  of  the  Gospel  is  from  John,  but  that  some 
extraneous  matter  has  come  in,  which  may  be 
eliminated  by  the  aid  of  the  Synoptics.  Others 
— especially  Beyschlag  (1874),  A.  Ritschl,  B. 
Weiss,  and  Sanday  (1872) — regard  the  memory 
of  John  as  furnishing  the  facts,  but  as  freely  treat- 
ing this  material   in  an  historic  ideal  narrative. 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL    1 3 

Karl  Hase  considers  the  Gospel  to  have  been 
committed  to  writing  some  years  after  the  death 
of  the  apostle.  Ed.  Reuss  finds  in  it  a  double 
element,  and  Schenkel  considers  the  apostle's 
recollections  as  furnishing  the  basis  of  the  work. 

In  closing  his  review,  Holtzmann  admits  the 
extreme  difficulty  of  coming  to  any  perfectly 
satisfa -cry  opinion.  No  attempt  to  reconstruct 
the  Gospel  on  the  principle  of  a  purpose  in  the 
writer  has  succeeded.  If  Jesus  is  represented 
as  the  divine  and  supernatural  Logos,  many 
traits  of  human  weakness  and  dependence  are 
also  ascribed  to  him.  That  he  is  made  a  mani- 
festation of  the  Logos  does  not  necessarily  prove 
his  Deity,  since  Philo  {Vita  Mosis)  regards 
Moses  as  a  manifestation  of  the  Logos.  But  he 
inclines  to  the  opinion  that  the  question  is  best 
solved  by  assuming  an  ideal  and  real  conjunc- 
tion in  the  evangel,  by  which  the  mystical  ele- 
ment may  be  explained  as  belonging  to  the  mind 
of  the  writer,  while  the  stamp  of  the  Synoptic 
history  may  be  found  in  the  rest  of  the  story. 

The  question  remains  in  this  condition.  As 
against  the  authority  of  the  apostle  are  the 
differences  in  the  accounts  of  Jesus  as  given  by 
the  Synoptics,  and  that  in  the  Fourth   Gospel; 


14    THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

but,  on  the  other  hand,  the  moment  these  are 
made  of  importance  enough  to  damage  the  apos- 
tolic authorship,  the  opposite  difficulty  of  ex- 
plaining its  general  reception  in  the  Church  is  i 
increased.  It  is  incredible  that  an  unknown 
Gospel,  presenting  itself  in  the  middle  of  the 
second  century,  claiming  the  great  apostle  as  its 
author  and  giving  a  new  view  of  Christ,  should 
have  been  received  by  the  whole  Church  without 
the  least  opposition.  The  objections  rest  on 
internal  evidence,  for  the  external  evidence  is  in 
favor  of  its  authenticity. 

One  of  the  most  recent,  able,  and  exhaustive 
examinations  of  the  problem  of  the  Fourth  Gos- 
pel is  to  be  found  in  the  article  by  Dr.  Edwin 
A.  Abbott,  head  master  of  the  London  schools. 
This  is  in  the  tenth  volume  of  the  last  edition 
of  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  article  "Gos- 
pels." The  author  belongs  to  the  freest  school 
of  thinkers,  and  is  in  evident  sympathy  with  the 
German  and  Dutch  critics ;  but  he  is  too 
thorough  a  scholar  to  go  all  lengths  with  them 
in  their  negations.  He  sees  and  admits  the 
marked  diiferences  between  the  Fourth  Gospel 
and  the  Synoptics,  and  indicates  seventeen  points 
where  John  thus  differs  from  the  Gospels  of  Mat- 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL    1 5 

thew,  Mark,  and  Luke.  He  says  it  has  greater 
scope  than  these,  is  more  artistic  and  complete, 
is  far  superior  to  them  in  the  symmetry  of  its 
method,  gives  more  of  the  purely  human  traits 
of  the  character  of  Jesus,  and  often  seems  to 
bring  him  upon  the  level  of  pure  humanity.  It 
destroys  the  special  privilege  of  pre-existence  by 
the  words,  "Did  this  man  sin,  that  he  was  born 
blind?"  It  is  faithful  to  the  spirit  rather  than 
the  letter  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  and  cares 
little  for  belief  founded  on  wonders.  It  repre- 
sents Jesus  as  always  following  the  intimations 
of  a  will  higher  than  his  own ;  makes  the  signs 
of  his  coming  not  outward,  but  inward;  and, 
when  it  does  not  give  the  exact  words  of  Jesus, 
gives  us  his  thoughts.  It  makes  the  essence  of 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus  spiritual, —  a  spiritual 
ascent  of  the  soul  in  accordance  with  law,  like 
the  sprouting  of  a  seed.  Dr.  Abbott  remarks 
that  the  statement  of  the  profound  law  of  the 
increased  influence  of  the  dead  on  the  living  can 
hardly  have  proceeded  from  any  other  than 
Jesus  himself.  And,  in  the  last  conversations, 
the  spiritual  depth  of  the  doctrine  goes  to  show 
that  we  have  in  them  much  of  the  Master's  own 
teaching. 


1 6    THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

As  regards  the  external  evidence,  Dr.  Abbott 
says  that  no  candid  mind  can  resist  the  proof 
that  some  of  the  apostolic  Fathers  (Barnabas, 
Hermas,  Ignatius)  used  the  Fourth  Gospel,  and 
that  Papias  had  quoted  it  before.  Hence,  he 
concludes  that  it  was  derived  from  John,  and 
is,  as  it  professes,  a  "  Gospel  according  to  John," 
But  he  thinks  that  it  may  have  been  edited  by 
a  disciple  or  a  successor,  and  that  John's  idio- 
syncrasy has  colored  the  language  attributed  to 
Jesus.  But  Dr.  Abbott  gives  no  support  to  the 
view  that  it  was  an  independent  composition, 
written  in  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  with 
the  purpose  of  giving  a  new  view  of  the  charac- 
ter and  teaching  of  Jesus. 

II. 

We  ask  next,  Which  ought  to  have  the  most 
weight  in  deciding  the  question  of  authorship, — 
the  united  and  unvarying  belief  of  the  Church, 
less  than  two  hundred  years  after  the  birth  of 
Christ,  or  the  arguments  of  criticism,  however  , 
ingenious,  at  the  present  time  ? 

To  test  this,  let  us  suppose  a  critic,  in  the 
year  A.D.  3500,  to  be  examining  the  question  of 
ihe  authorship  of  the  Paradise  Lost.     He  finds, 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  >S^5P^:/fr 

we  will  suppose,  few  references  to  it  before  the 
year  1800 ;  but,  at  that  time,  it  was  universally- 
attributed  to  John  Milton,  an  eminent  English 
writer  of  the  seventeenth  century.  Such  had 
continued  to  be  the  general  belief  during  all 
the  subsequent  centuries.  But  this  critic,  on 
examination,  sees  much  reason  for  doubting 
this  conclusion.  "I  find,"  he  says,  "other 
works,  in  prose,  attributed  to  this  same  writer, — 
works  of  a  violent  and  bitterly  controversial 
character,  and  wholly  different  in  spirit  from  the 
poem.  In  these,  he  is  a  son  of  Thunder,  ready 
to  call  down  fire  from  heaven  on  the  heads  of 
his  opponents  :  in  this,  he  is  patient  under  neg- 
lect and  sorrow.  The  difference  of  style  also 
is  very  great.  The  prose  writings  have  long, 
involved,  difficult  sentences:  the  verse  is  lumi- 
nous, simple,  and  clear.  No  person,  for  exam- 
ple, unbiassed  by  prejudice,  can  read  the  '  Ani- 
madversions on  the  Remonstrant's  Defence 
against  Smectymnuus,'  and  believe  the  author  of 
this  bitter,  obscure,  and  prosaic  essay  and  that 
of  the  Pm-adise  Lost  to  be  the  same  person. 
Take,  for  example,  the  following  passage,  which 
is  a  fair  specimen  of  the  whole  :  — 

"'The  peremptory  analysis,  that  you  call  it,  I  believe 
will  be  so  hardy  as  once  more  to  unpin  your  spruce,  fastid- 


1 8     THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

ious  oratory,  to  rumple  her  laces,  her  frizzles,  and  her 
bobbins,  though  she  wince  and  fling  never  so  peevishly. 

"  *  Remotist. —  Those  verbal  exceptions  are  but  light 
froth,  and  will  sink  alone. 

'■'"'■  Ans. —  O  rare  Subtlety,  beyond  all  that  Cardan  ever 
dreamed  of!  when  will  light  froth  sink.?  Here,  in  your 
phrase,  the  same  day  that  heavy  plummets  will  swim 
alone.  Trust  this  man,  readers,  if  you  please,  whose 
divinity  would  reconcile  England  with  Rome,  and  his  phi- 
losophy make  friends  nature  with  the  chaos,  sine  pondere 
habeiitia  p07idus. 

^^^Remonst. —  That  scum  may  be  worth  taking  off, 
which  follows. 

^'*Ans. —  Spare  your  ladle,  sir:  it  will  be  as  the 
bishop's  foot  in  the  broth ;  the  scum  will  be  found  upon 
your  own  remonstrance.' 

"It  is  evident,"  our  critic  might  say,  "that 
the  man  who  could  write  pages  of  such  stuff  as 
this  could  not  be  the  author  of  Paradise  Lost. 
Which  of  these,  then,  was  John  Milton  ?  An- 
cient writers  declare  Milton  to  have  been  a 
Puritan,  a  friend  and  secretary  of  Cromwell,  a 
schoolmaster,  the  writer  of  a  Latin  Dictionary 
and  the  History  of  England.  When  could  he 
have  written  the  Paradise  Lost?  All  tradition 
agrees  that  it  was  not  pubHshed  till  1667.  But 
then  he  was  already  fifty-nine  years  old ;  and 
he  died  seven  years  after,  blind  and  tormented 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL    1 9 

with  the  gout.  Is  it  credible  that  this  splendid 
poem  could  have  been  composed  at  such  a  time 
of  life  and  under  such  circumstances  by  one 
who  had  given  all  his  mature  years  to  politics, 
sectarian  theology,  and  Latin  dictionaries  ? 

"It  is  true,"  our  thirty-fifth  century  critic 
might  add,  "that  the  scattering  notices  of  this 
poem  before  the  nineteenth  century  do  all  attrib- 
ute it  to  the  Puritan  John  Milton,  But  it  is 
a  suspicious  circumstance  that  one  of  these 
writers,  named  Johnson  (who  flourished  about 
A.D.  1760),  speaks  of  the  'long  obscurity  and 
late  reception '  of  this  poem,  '  and  that  it  did 
not  break  into  open  view '  till  the  Revolution  of 
1688.  It  is  also  remarkable  that  the  most  emi- 
nent contemporaries  of  this  writer  do  not  speak 
of  the  poem  or  know  of  it.  Jeremy  Taylor, 
Baxter,  Locke,  Newton,  Leibnitz,  all  living  at 
the  same  time,  are  ignorant  of  the  existence  of 
Paradise  Lost.  If  such  a  great  poem  had  then 
been  published,  is  it  possible  that  they  should 
not  have  read  it  ?  It  is  still  more  singular  that 
the  public  attention  was  first  called  to  it  forty 
or  fifty  years  after  its  supposed  date  by  a  writer 
of  periodical  papers,  named  Addison.  Before 
his  time,  only  one  eminent  man  appears  to  have 


20     THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

known  of  it,  and  that  one  another  poet,  named 
Dryden,  who  gives  it  great  praise.  Now,  Dry- 
den  was  universally  admitted  to  have  been  a 
genius  of  the  first  order,  and  a  celebrated  poet ; 
while  Milton,  as  we  have  seen,  was  known  only 
as  a  prose  writer,  and  a  very  prosaic  prose  writer. 
Milton  was  incapable  of  writing  the  Paradise 
Lost ;  for,  though  some  shorter  poems  seem  to 
have  been  attributed  to  him,  yet  the  critic 
before  referred  to  (Johnson)  says  that  those  who 
pretend  to  like  them  '  force  their  judgment  into 
false  approbation  of  these  little  pieces,  and 
prevail  on  themselves  to  think  that  admirable 
which  is  only  singular.'  He  adds  of  one  that 
'  its  diction  is  harsh,  its  rhymes  uncertain,  and 
its  numbers  unpleasing ' ;  and  of  another,  '  In 
this  poem  there  is  no  nature,  for  there  is  no 
truth.'  If,  therefore,  Milton  wrote  the  shorter 
poems,  he  evidently  did  not  write  the  longer  one. 
Youth  is  the  season  of  poetry.  If,  in  his  youth, 
he  tried  to  write  poetry,  and  wrote  it  so  badly, 
is  it  possible  that,  old  and  blind,  after  spending 
his  life  in  teaching  school,  making  dictionaries, 
and  writing  bitter  theological  essays,  he  could 
suddenly  fall  heir  to  the  splendid  genius  which 
irradiates  the  Paradise  Lost?    Milton  could  not 


THE  PROBLEM  OP  THE  FOURTH   GOSPEL         21 

have  written  this  poem.  But  Dryden  could. 
And  there  was  very  good  reason  why  Dryden 
should  conceal  the  fact ;  for  he  had  been  a  Puri- 
tan, and  had  become  a  Catholic.  He  probably 
wrote  the  poem  before  his  change  of  opinion, 
and  this  accounts  for  the  religious  views  which 
it  contains.  He  dared  not  publish  it  openly 
under  his  own  name,  after  becoming  a  Catholic, 
and  could  not  bear  to  suppress  it.  Nothing  re- 
mained but  to  publish  it  under  the  name  of  an- 
other; and  he. selected  that  of  Milton,  the  Puri- 
tan, as  an  obscure  man,  to  whom  it  might  easily 
be  attributed.  This  supposition,  and  only  this, 
accounts  for  all  the  facts  in  the  case." 

An  ingenious  critic  can  always  find  such  argu- 
ments as  these  by  which  to  unsettle  the  authen- 
ticity of  any  book,  no  matter  how  long  or  how 
universally  ascribed  to  a  particular  author.  But 
which  is  likely  to  be  right, —  the  individual  critic 
or  the  universal  opinion  ?  Shall  we  trust  the 
common  belief  of  a  period  near  enough  to  have 
the  means  of  knowing  the  truth,  yet  distant 
enough  to  have  had  time  to  gather  up  all  the 
threads  of  evidence,  or  the  reasonings  and 
judgment  of  a  man  living  ten  or  fifteen  centuries 
after  ? 


22    THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

Mr.  Tayler  himself  says,  "With  Irenaeus  and 
Tertullian,  who  mark  the  transition  from  the 
second  to  the  third  century,  the  testimony  to  the 
apostolic  origin  and  authority  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel  becomes  so  clear,  express,  and  full,  and 
the  verdict  of  the  Catholic  Church  respecting  it 
so  decisive,  that  it  is  quite  unnecessary  to  pursue 
the  line  of  witnesses  any  farther."  Now,  Mr. 
Tayler  supposes  it  to  have  been  forged  or  in- 
vented after  A.D.  135.  In  less  than  sixty-five 
years,  then,  this  false  book  is  universally  re- 
ceived as  the  work  of  a  great  apostle  who  could 
hardly  have  been  dead  fifty  years  when  the 
Gospel  was  written,  and  not  a  hundred  when  it 
was  thus  universally  received  as  his.  Wesley 
has  been  dead  just  about  as  long  as  the  Apostle 
John  had  been  dead  when  the  Fourth  Gospel 
was  universally  ascribed  to  him. »  Who  can 
think  that  a  work  on  religion,  essentially  differ- 
ing from  Wesley's  other  teachings,  could  have 
been  forged  a  few  years  after  his  death,  and  be 
now  universally  accepted  in  all  the  Methodist 
churches  of  Europe  and  America  as  his  authen- 
tic writing  ?  Yet  this  is  what  we  are  invited  to 
believe  concerning  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

In  deciding  such  questions,  too  much  weight 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE   FOURTH   GOSPEL         2$ 

is  given  to  the  function  of  criticism,  which  only- 
judges  by  the  letter.  The  critical  faculty  in  man 
is  an  important  one,  certainly ;  but  as  certainly 
gives  us  no  knowledge  of  God  or  man,  of  spirit 
or  matter,  of  law  or  love.  All  it  can  do  is  to 
"peep  and  botanize";  take  to  pieces  the  living 
flower,  in  order  to  see  how  many  stamens  it  has ; 
"murder,  to  dissect."  All  the  large  movements 
of  man's  soul  are  above  its  reach.  It  gropes  in 
the  dark,  like  a  mole.  A  single  new  experience, 
one  inspired  impulse,  will  set  aside  its  most  care- 
fully built  up  array  of  evidence.  It  can  judge 
of  the  future  only  by  the  past, —  and  usually  by 
a  very  narrow  past, —  and  so  is  very  apt  to  be 
deceived. 

The  French  proverb  says,  "  On  pent  etre  plus 
fin  qu'un  autre,  mais  pas  plus  fin  que  tous  les 
autres."  We  may  believe  that  our  critics  in 
the  nineteenth  century  are  very  acute ;  but  do 
they  know  more  about  John  and  his  writings 
than  all  the  Christian  churches  in  the  third 
century  together?  Possibly  there  may  have 
been  some  critical  persons  there  too,  and  with 
better  means  of  knowledge  than  we  have.  There 
were  Christians  f/ien  who  had  the  power  of  trying 
spirits,  to  see  whether  they  were  of  God  or  not ; 


24    THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

who  could  tell  if  a  new  Gospel,  which  was  no 
Gospel,  was  handed  to  them,  giving  an  account 
of  their  Master  wholly  different  from  that  which 
they  had  been  taught  by  apostolic  tradition. 
According  to  the  critics  there  was  not  in  all  the 
churches,  in  the  second  century,  a  single  man 
who  could  look  this  false  John  in  the  face,  and 
tear  off  his  mask,  saying,  "  Jesus  I  know,  Paul 
I  know,  Matthew  and  Mark  and  Luke  I  know ; 
but  who  are  you  ?  "  But  there  were  men  in  the 
churches  then,  as  well  as  before  and  after,  who 
had  been  taught  acuteness  in  the  keen  discus- 
sions of  the  Jewish  and  Greek  schools,  whose 
wits  had  been  sharpened  by  rabbinical  debates, 
and  who  were  quite  able  to  see  the  difference 
between  the  Jesus  of  Luke  and  the  Christ  of 
John.  Why,  then,  was  not  a  single  voice  raised, 
in  all  the  churches,  against  this  intruder?  The 
only  possible  answer  is  that  he  came  with  such 
guarantees  of  his  character  as  silenced  all  ques- 
tion. Holtzmann's  book  contains  a  full  discus- 
sion of  the  whole  question.  All  that  bears  on 
the  authority  and  authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gos- 
pel has  been  brought  together,  and  he  has  not 
found  one  writer  in  the  first  centuries  expressing 
any  doubt  of  St.  John's  being  the  author  of  the 


THE   PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH   GOSPEL  2$ 

Fourth  Gospel.  All  that  is  said  is  in  its  favor: 
the  only  objection  is  that  there  is  not  more.  As 
far  as  external  evidence  goes,  one  should,  me- 
thinks,  be  satisfied  if  it  is  all  one  way.  But 
critics  whose  object  is  to  discredit  a  book  or 
writer  can  find  fault  very  easily.  Not  that  they 
mean  to  be  unfair;  but  they  are  students  in  the 
school  of  Baur,  and  would  be  more  than  human 
if  they  had  not  caught  the  habit  there  of  hinting 
a  fault  and  hesitating  dislike. 

The  external  evidence,  pro  and  con,  may  be 
summed  up  thus  :  A//  that  we  have,  in  regard  to 
the  Fourth  Gospel  in  the  first  two  centuries,  is  in 
its  favor ;  and,  by  the  end  of  the  second  century, 
the  testimony  is  so  full  and  plain  that  even 
Tubingen  critics  must  admit  it  to  be  satisfactory. 
When  one  complained  that  he  had  not  time 
enough,  the  reply  was  not  unreasonable, —  that 
he  had  "  all  the  time  there  was."  To  those  who 
want  more  evidence  of  the  authenticity  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  we  may  in  like  manner  reply  that 
"  all  the  evidence  there  is,  is  on  that  side." 

The  unanimity  of  the  churches  at  the  end  of 
the  second  century,  in  receiving  this  Gospel  as 
the  work  of  the  apostle,  is  such  an  inexplicable 
fact,  supposing  it  to  have  been  forged,  that  the 


26    THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

defenders  of  this  hypothesis  are  obliged  to  take 
the  position  that  Christians  were  then  so  uncrit- 
ical that  they  were  willing  to  accept  as  authentic 
any  writing  which  seemed  edifying,  without  ex- 
amination or  evidence.  But  this  is  a  mere  as- 
sumption, contradicted  by  the  facts  of  the  case. 
Luke,  in  the  preface  to  his  Gospel,  already  as- 
sumes the  critical  position,  though  he  criticises 
and  denies  for  the  sake  of  affirming.  He  rejects 
the  false,  in  order  to  retain  the  true.  He  tells 
us  that,  since  so  many  were  undertaking  to  relate 
the  apostolic  traditions  concerning  Jesus,  he 
wrote  his  Gospel  from  very  accurate  knowledge 
and  the  best  opportunities,  so  that  Theophilus 
might  have  ^^ cerfainfy^^  {aG(pdleLav)  in  his  belief. 
His  object  was  a  critical  one, —  to  separate  the 
uncertain  and  doubtful  accounts  of  Jesus  from 
those  well-ascertained  and  verified.  This  does 
not  look  as  if  there  was  no  critical  judgment  in 
the  Church. 

We  know,  moreover,  that  many  apocryphal 
and  doubtful  Gospels  were  in  circulation  at  the 
beginning.  They  were  not  hostile  to  Christ. 
They  err  in  the  opposite  direction.  They  are 
zealous  to  exalt  him  to  the  utmost, —  to  heap 
miracle  on  miracle  ;  to  paint  the  lily,  and  add  a 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL    ^^ 

perfume  to  the  violet.  Why,  then,  were  they 
rejected  ?  Love  for  Christ  might  have  retained 
them,  but  the  sense  of  truth  rejected  them.  If, 
as  is  assumed,  the  critical  faculty  at  first  was 
absent,  and  only  blind  feeling  existed,  why  were 
all  these  well-meant  but  spurious  narratives  ex- 
cluded, one  after  the  other,  from  the  received 
Scriptures  ?  What  has  become  of  the  "  Gospel  of 
the  Infancy,"  ascribed  to  the  Apostle  Thomas ; 
the  "  Protoevangelium,"  ascribed  to  James, 
brother  of  the  Lord ;  the  "  Gospel  of  the  Nativ- 
ity of  Mary,"  "  the  Gospel  of  Nicodemus,"  and 
especially  the  "  Gospel  to  the  Hebrews,"  which 
once  had  high  authority  ?  The  sense  of  truth  in 
the  churches  rejected  them,  one  by  one, —  that 
spirit  of  truth  which  was  just  as  much  an  element 
of  primitive  Christianity  as  the  spirit  of  love ; 
the  spirit  of  truth  which  Jesus  promised  should 
be  given  his  disciples,  and  which  should  "  take 
of  his,  and  show  to  them." 

Eusebius,  writing  about  the  year  325,  gives  an 
account  of  the  New  Testament  canon,  distin- 
guishing between  the  books  universally  received, 
those  received  by  some  and  rejected  by  others, 
and  those  generally  rejected.  This  threefold 
division  of  accepted,  disputed,  and  spurious  cer- 


28    THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

tainly  shows  that  the  churches  in  his  time  had  a 
critical  sense  in  full  operation.  But,  before  his 
time,  three  eminent  writers,  all  of  whom  accept 
as  unquestioned  the  Gospel  of  John,  had  shown 
an  active  and  acute  spirit  of  investigation.  The 
first  is  Irenaeus,  disciple  of  Polycarp,  Bishop  of 
Lyons  (A.D.  177-202),  whom  Hase  calls  "a 
clear-minded,  thoughtful  man,  of  philosophic 
culture,  who  opposed  the  Gnostic  speculations 
with  the  help  of  reminiscences  taken  from  his 
youth,  which  came  in  contact  with  the  apostolic 
age."  His  testimony  to  John,  the  apostle,  as 
author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  the  critics  admit  to 
be  positive  and  unquestionable.  So  is  that  of 
Tertullian,  one  of  the  greatest  thinkers  and 
writers  in  the  Church,  first  a  heathen  orator  and 
lawyer  in  Rome  (about  A.D.  190),  whose  fiery 
African  nature  was  joined  with  the  acutest  intel- 
lect of  his  time.  And,  thirdly,  Origen  (born  A.D. 
185),  learned  in  all  the  knowledge  of  the  Alex- 
andrian school,  an  independent  thinker  and  stu- 
dent. He  says  that  the  Gospels  of  Matthew, 
Mark,  Luke,  and  John,  are  the  "  only  undisputed 
ones  in  the  whole  Church  of  God  throughout  the 
world."  Origen  examines  critically  all  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament,  marks  the  difference  of 


((  UNIVEl^SlTY 

THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH\gOSFEL  .  20 

style  between  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  ~  ihSf"' 
the  undisputed  writings  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  and 
says  of  it  that  "who  really  wrote  it  God  only 
knows." 

By  the  whole  Church,  then,  including  all  its 
great  thinkers  and  writers,  at  the  end  of  the  sec- 
ond century,  the  authenticity  of  the  Gospel  of 
John  is  undisputed.  Also  before  that  time,  as 
far  as  it  is  mentioned  at  all,  it  is  equally  undis- 
puted, the  only  question  being  why  it  was  not 
more  often  mentioned.  But  the  apostolic  Fathers 
were  not  in  the  habit  of  quoting  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers  by  name  or  as  authority, —  they  were 
too  near  to  their  own  time, —  so  that  their  silence 
is  no  argument  against  their  belief  in  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  Gospel. 

The  external  evidence,  therefore,  concerning 
the  Fourth  Gospel,  may  be  thus  summed  up  :  — 

1.  According  to  Dr.  Edwin  A.  Abbott  (Ency- 
clopaedia Britannica),  Papias  and  the  apostolic 
Fathers  quoted  and  used  it. 

2.  Every  Christian  writer,  in  the  first  three 
centuries,  who  has  given  the  name  of  its  author, 
has  attributed  it  to  the  Apostle  John. 

3.  The  great  writers  and  critics  at  the  end  of 
the  second  and  beginning  of  the  third  century  — 


30    THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  Clement,  Origen,  and  after- 
ward Eusebius,  who  carefully  divide  the  Script- 
ures into  "  undoubted,  doubtful,  and  spurious  " — 
all  put  this  Gospel  among  the  undoubted  apos- 
tolic writings. 

4.  No  serious  opposition  to  the  authenticity  of 
this  Gospel  has  arisen  until  the  present  time,  and 
among'  a  special  class  of  critics ;  while  others 
(like  Liicke,  Godet,  Keil,  Ewald,  De  Wette,  and 
Tischendorf)  equally  acute  and  free,  say  that,  in 
regard  to  external  evidence,  this  Gospel  "  stands, 
not  in  a  worse,  but  in  a  better  position  than 
either  the  first  three  Gospels  or  the  writings  of 
Paul."* 

We  may  therefore  conclude  that,  were  it  not 
for  the  objections  brought  against  the  contents 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  no  such  doubts  of  its  au- 
thenticity would  have  arisen  as  now  prevail 
among  some  learned  and  candid  writers. 

Let  us  therefore  examine  more  carefully  the 
nature  of  the  objections  brought  on  internal 
grounds. 

*De  Wette,  Iniroduction,  etc.,  §  109. 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL    3 1 
III. 

The  internal  evidence  against  the  authenticity 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel  may  be  distributed  under 
three  heads  :  i.  Its  difference  from  the  three  Syn- 
optics ;  2.  Its  difference  from  the  Apocalypse ; 
3.  Its  difference  from  the  writings  of  Paul. 

We  begin  with  the  most  important  of  these. 
The  divergence  from  the  first  three  Gospels  re- 
lates to  the  character  of  Jesus,  the  events  of  his 
life,  and  its  doctrinal  teaching. 

The  first  —  and,  if  correct,  conclusive  —  ob- 
jection against  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel  is  this  :  It  ^ives  a  view  of  the  character  of 
Jesus  so  different  from  that  of  the  Synoptics  as  to 
constitute  another  person.  The  character  of  Jesus 
as  represented  by  the  Synoptics  and  that  represented 
by  John  are  contradictory  to  each  other. 

M.  Albert  Reville  {Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,  liv. 
de  Mai  i,  1866)  thus  describes  this  difference: 
In  the  first  three  Gospels,  Jesus  is  a  teacher  of 
the  Truth;  but,  in  the  Fourth,  he  is  the  Truth 
itself.  In  the  Synoptics,  he  appears  as  a  man; 
in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  as  the  Word  of  God.  He 
finds  in  its  author  a  scholar  of  Philo,  who  had 
appropriated  his  Platonic  theory  of  the  Word,  as 


32    THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

the  indwelling,  unuttered  thought  of  God  (?.6yoc 
hdiadero^),  and  as  the  manifested  divine  reason 
{loyoq  •Kpo<popLK6g).  This  Word,  according  to  him, 
appeared  among  men  as  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
and,  being  essential  light,  was  opposed  by  the 
darkness.  He  attracts  to  himself  all  men  in 
whom  the  light  is  supreme,  and  repels  the  sons  of 
darkness.  He  calls  on  all  men  to  believe  in 
himself  as  "  the  Way,  the  Truth,  and  the  Life  " ; 
as  "the  True  Vine  " ;  as  "  the  Living  Bread  which 
came  down  from  heaven "  ;  as  the  only  open 
"Door"  to  God;  as  the  "Well-beloved  Son, 
dwelling  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father."  This, 
says  M.  R^ville,  makes  an  essentially  different 
character  from  the  simple  country-rabbi  of  the 
Synoptics. 

Mr.  Tayler's  view  is  the  same.  He  says  :  "  In 
the  first  three  Gospels,  we  have  the  picture,  ex- 
ceedingly vivid  and  natural,  of  a  great  moral  and 
religious  reformer,  cautiously  making  his  way 
through  the  prejudices  and  misconceptions  of 
his  contemporaries,  gradually  obtaining  their  con- 
fidence, and  changing  the  direction  of  their 
hopes.  In  the  Fourth,  on  the  contrary,  the  un- 
clouded glory  of  the  Son  of  God  shines  out  com- 
plete from  the  first,  and   is   sustained  undimin- 


THE   PROBLEM   OF  THE  FOURTH   GOSPEL         33 

ished   till   the   words  *  It   is  finished '  announce 
its  withdrawal  from  earth." 

There  is,  doubtless,  some  truth  in  all  this. 
And  yet,  if  we  were  disposed  to  take  the  opposite 
view,  and  say  that  John  chiefly  developed  the 
purely  human  side  of  Jesus,  how  much  we  might 
find  to  say  !  John  says  nothing  of  the  miracu- 
lous conception,  which  appears  both  in  Matthew 
and  Luke  ;  nor  of  his  victory  over  the  doctors  in 
his  childhood ;  nor  of  his  defeat  of  the  devil  in 
his  temptation  ;  nor  of  his  influence  over  demons 
and  evil  spirits ;  nor  of  his  power  over  the  ele- 
ments of  nature,  in  commanding  the  winds  and 
waves ;  nor  of  the  transfiguration ;  nor  of  his 
cursing  the  fig-tree ;  nor  of  the  shock  of  nature 
at  his  death,  the  miraculous  darkness,  the  rend- 
ing rocks,  the  dead  rising  from  their  graves. 
And,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  the  Gospel  of  John 
which  furnishes  the  most  purely  human  traits 
in  the  character  of  Jesus, —  which  shows  him 
weeping  at  the  grave  of  Lazarus  ;  which  depicts 
him,  weary  with  his  journey,  sitting  by  the  well ; 
which  shows  his  need  of  private  friendships,  in 
his  love  for  Martha,  Mary,  and  Lazarus,  and  the 
beloved  disciple  himself  ;  and  his  sympathy  with 
human  cheerfulness,  in  the  water  turned  to  wine. 


34     THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

Still  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  Gospel  of  John 
gives  a  quite  different  view  of  Christ  from  that  of 
the  Synoptics.  The  Christ  of  this  is  more  ideal, 
reflective,  spiritual ;  the  Christ  of  those,  practi- 
cal, direct,  and  popular.  But  Hase  well  says, 
"Since  a  great,  unfathomed  character  must  be 
differently  apprehended  by  those  who  surround 
him,  according  to  the  difference  in  the  observers 
and  the  measure  of  each  man's  mind,  it  follows 
that  John's  different  view  of  Jesus  proves  nothing 
against  the  authenticity  of  his  Gospel,  unless  it 
could  be  shown  that  a  higher  unity  of  these 
diverse  views  is  an  impossibility."  * 

About  twenty-five  years  after  the  death  of  Dr. 
Channing,  a  meeting  was  held  in  Boston  to  com- 
memorate his  character  and  genius,  at  which 
speeches  were  made  by  different  friends  of  his, 
all  of  whom  had  known  him  intimately  and  well. 
Yet  it  was  noticed  that  they  gave  such  different 
descriptions  of  his  character  as  almost  to  contra- 
dict each  other.  Some  described  him  as  inac- 
cessible and  retiring,  others  as  specially  hospita- 
ble and  easy  of  approach  ;  some  denied  to  him 
imagination  and  poetry,  for  which  others  made  a 
peculiar  claim ;  some,  in  fine,  said  that  he  was 
not  a  great  thinker,  while  others  considered  him 

♦  Hase,  Lehen  Jesu. 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL    35 

one  of  the  leading  intellects  of  the  age.  The  ex- 
planation was  that  they  saw  him  on  different 
sides  of  his  character. 

But  the  most  complete  parallel  to  the  diver- 
gences between  the  evangelists  is  to  be  found  in 
the  widely  opposite  view  of  Socrates,  as  given  by 
Xenophon  and  Plato.  The  first  represents  him 
as  a  moral  teacher,  inculcating  self-control,  tem- 
perance, piety,  duty  to  parents,  brotherly  love, 
friendship,  diligence,  benevolence,  and  expressly 
avoiding  all  ideal  themes,  as  transcending  the 
limits  of  human  knowledge.  He  was  eminently 
a  practical  man,  as  thus  described  in  the  Mem- 
orabilia. But,  according  to  Plato,  his  whole 
life  was  passed  in  speculative  inquiries  into  the 
essences  of  things  and  in  transcendental  discus- 
sions. And,  nevertheless,  Mr.  Grote  and  other 
eminent  writers  consider  both  accounts  authentic 
and  genuine.  Mr.  Grote  says  :  *  "  We  find,  to  our 
great  satisfaction,  that  the  pictures  given  by 
Plato  and  Xenophon  of  their  common  master 
are,  in  the  main,  accordant;  differing  only  as 
drawn  fro77t  the  same  original  by  two  authors  rad- 
ically differing  in  spirit  and  character.  Xenophon, 
the  man  of  action,  brings  out  at  length  those  con- 
versations of  Soci'ates  which  had  a  bearing  on  prac- 

*  History  of  Greece t  chap.  Ixviii, 


36    THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

tical  conduct,  and  were  calculated  to  correct  vice 
or  infirmity  in  particular  individuals.  .  .  .  Plato 
leaves  out  the  practical,  and  consecrates  himself  to 
the  theoretical  Socrates,  whom  he  divests  in  part  of 
his  identity,  in  order  to  enroll  him  as  chief 
speaker  in  certain  larger  theoretical  views  of  his 
own.  The  two  pictures,  therefore,  do  fiot  contradict 
each  other,  but  mutually  supply  each  other's  defects, 
and  admit  of  being  blended  ifito  one  consistent  whole. 
And,  respecting  the  method  of  Socrates,  as  well 
as  the  eifect  of  that  method  on  the  minds  of  the 
hearers,  both  Xenophon  and  Plato  are  witnesses 
substantially  in  union ;  though,  here  again,  the 
latter  has  made  the  method  his  own,  worked  it 
out  on  a  scale  of  enlargement  and  perfection, 
and  given  it  a  permanence  it  could  never  have 
derived  from  its  original  author,  who  talked  and 
never  wrote.  It  is  fortunate  that  our  two  main 
witnesses  about  him,  both  speaking  from  personal 
knowledge,  agree  to  so  great  an  extent.''^ 

We  have  italicized  the  passages  which  illus- 
trate our  present  point.  As  Xenophon  and 
Plato  to  Socrates,  so  were  the  Synoptics  and 
John  to  Christ.  Their  two  portraits  of  Jesus 
"  differ  only  as  drawn  from  the  same  original 
by  two  authors   radically  differing  in  spirit  and 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH   GOSPEL         37 

character."  The  Synoptics,  men  of  action^ 
bring  out  those  sayings  of  Jesus  "  which  had 
a  bearing  on  practical  conduct."  John  "leaves 
out  the  practical,  and  consecrates  himself  to  the 
theoretical "  Jesus.  "  The  two  pictures,  there- 
fore, do  not  contradict  each  other,  but  mutually 
supply  each  other's  defects." 

Have  we  not  also  reason  to  say  of  Jesus,  as 
Mr.  Grote  says  of  Socrates,  "  It  is  fortunate  that 
our  two  main  witnesses  about  him,  both  speak- 
ing from  personal  knowledge,  agree  to  so  great 
an  extent "  ?  Let  us  see  how  much  the  four 
Gospels  have  in  common.  John  agrees  with 
the  Synoptics  in  regard  to  the  ministry  of  John 
the  Baptist  as  a  preparation  for  that  of  Jesus; 
the  baptism  of  Jesus  by  him ;  the  casting  of  the 
Baptist  into  prison,  and  subsequent  return  of 
Jesus  into  Galilee  ;  the  healing  of  the  centurion's 
servant;  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand;  the 
walking  on  the  sea ;  Peter's  profession  of  faith ; 
the  anointing  by  Mary ;  the  entry  of  Christ  into 
Jerusalem  at  the  last  Passover;  the  fact  of 
the  cleansing  of  the  Temple ;  the  fact  of  the 
supper;  the  fall  of  Peter  foretold  by  Jesus; 
Gethsemane ;  the  betrayal  by  Judas ;  the  exami- 
nation  before   the   high   priest;    the   denial   by 


38    THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

Peter ;  the  examination  by  Pilate ;  the  accusa- 
tion and  condemnation ;  the  abuse  by  the  sol- 
diers ;  the  crucifixion ;  the  burial ;  the  resurrec- 
tion ;  the  appearances  in  Jerusalem. 

Moreover,  passages  occur  in  the  Synoptics,  in 
exact  harmony  with  those  in  John,  in  which 
Jesus  is  represented  not  merely  as  a  teacher  of 
Truth,  but  as  himself  the  Truth  and  Life.  What 
is  there  in  John  more  striking  of  this  kind  than 
the  passage  in  Matthew  (xi.,  28),  "Come  unto  me, 
all  ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I 
will  give  you  rest " ;  or  the  preceding  passage, 
"  No  man  knows  who  the  Son  is  but  the  Father, 
or  who  the  Father  is  but  the  Son,  and  he  to 
whom  the  Son  shall  reveal  him  "  ?  What  vaster 
claim  is  there  in  John  than  that  in  Matthew 
(xxviii.,  18),  "All  power  is  given  to  me  in 
heaven  and  earth";  or  the  picture  of  himself 
(Matt.  XXV.,  31)  as  the  future  judge  of  all  the 
nations  of  the  world,  accompanied  by  the  angels? 
And,  on  the  other  hand,  John's  Gospel  asserts, 
as  fully  as  those  of  the  Synoptics,  the  human 
limitations  and  dependence  of  Jesus.  When  ac- 
cused of  arrogating  to  himself  the  name  of  God, 
he  claims  only  that  of  a  son,  appealing  with 
entire  humility  to  the  Old  Testament  use  of  Ian- 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL    39 

guage  (John  xvi.,  33-36).  He  ascribes  exclusive 
honor  to  the  Father  only  (John  vii.,  18),  and  pro- 
fesses to  do  nothing  of  himself  (John  v.,  30). 

IV. 

Passing  from  the  picture  of  the  character  of 
Jesus  to  the  story  of  events  in  his  career,  we 
first  encounter  this  fact :  The  Synoptics  place 
all  the  first  part  of  the  life  of  Jesus  in  Galilee, 
and  say  nothing  of  his  going  to  Jerusalem  before 
the  last  Passover.  John,  on  the  other  hand, 
mentions  several  visits  to  Jerusalem,  at  different 
festivals.  But  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  proba- 
ble that  Jesus  complied  with  the  national  cus- 
tom in  going  to  the  feasts;  and  that  he  took 
occasion,  while  there,  to  talk  with  the  leaders  of 
different  parties,  and  test  their  state  of  mind 
in  respect  to  his  mission.  He  went  only  as  a 
private  man  on  each  of  these  occasions,  as  is 
stated  in  regard  to  one  of  them  (John  vii.,  10, 
ov  <j)avepo)g,  a7J:  wf  h  KpvTTTO), —  "  not  publicly,  but  as 
it  were  privately  ").  In  accordance  with  this,  he 
avoided  working  miracles ;  or,  if  he  could  not 
refuse  the  suppliant,  he  adopted  some  method 
by  which  he  withdrew  from  observation.  This 
we  suppose  to  have  been  his  reason  for  anoint- 


40     THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

ing  the  eyes  of  the  blind  man  with  clay,  and 
telling  him  to  wash  in  the  pool  of  Siloam.  The 
man  did  not  discover  that  he  was  healed  till  he 
had  gone  and  washed  off  the  clay  (John  ix.,  1-7). 
So,  in  the  healing  of  the  impotent  man,  Jesus 
avoided  publicity  (John  v.,  13).  He  spoke  of 
himself  to  the  Jews  as  being  sent  by  God,  and 
speaking  what  was  given  him  to  say ;  but  he 
nowhere  openly  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah.  He 
spoke  of  the  Messiah  frequently  under  the  title 
of  "  the  Son,"  and  described  his  qualities ;  but 
he  refused  the  request  of  his  brethren,  that  he 
should  "show  himself  to  the  world"  (John  vii., 
3-6),  on  the  ground  that  his  time  had  not  yet 
-come.  This  invitation  indicates  plainly  that  he 
did  not  appear  as  publicly  in  Jerusalem  as  in 
Galilee.  The  Synoptics,  therefore,  describing 
only  his  public  life,  and  perhaps  not  having 
gone  with  him  to  Jerusalem  on  these  visits,  say 
nothing  of  them ;  but  John  speaks  of  them, 
because  of  the  conversations  which  took  place 
there.  It  is  probable  that,  meeting  at  the  feast 
men  of  a  deeper  insight  and  higher  culture  than 
in  Galilee,  Jesus  spoke  to  them  more  plainly 
of  his  idea  of  the  Messiah;  and  these  are  the 
conversations  which   John  narrates.      Questions 


ff    ^  or   THC  r 

{^UNIVERSITY 

THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  G^S^^Jf^^^^^  -^ 

constantly  arose  as  to  whether  he  were  the 
Christ  or  not,  but  Jesus  himself  delayed  any 
claim  to  that  title.  Undoubtedly,  he  asserts  a 
great  mission :  He  is  the  light  of  the  world.  He 
is  from  above.  If  any  man  thirst,  let  him  come 
to  him  and  drink.  His  day  was  seen  by  Abra- 
ham :  therefore,  he  existed  in  the  divine  purpose 
before  Abraham.  But  still  he  would  not  say 
plainly  that  he  was  the  Christ  (John  x.,  24). 
His  sheep  would  know  his  voice,  without  any 
such  claim. 

This,  we  think,  sufficiently  explains  the  silence 
of  the  Synoptics  in  regard  to  these  visits  to  Jeru- 
salem. Jesus  went  alone,  or  with  only  one  or 
two  of  his  disciples,  as  a  private  Jew,  to  the 
national  festivals.  For  this  reason,  the  Synop- 
tics omit  mention  of  them ;  but  John,  who  may 
have  gone  with  his  Master  at  these  times,  found 
sufficient  interest  in  the  conversations  to  record 
them  as  he  was  able  to  remember  them. 

A  great  difficulty  is  made  of  the  omission,  by 
the  Synoptics,  of  any  mention  of  the  raising  of 
Lazarus.  Why  they  omit  it  cannot  now  be 
known.  Lazarus  and  his  family  were  the  objects 
of  hatred  to  the  authorities  at  Jerusalem  (John 
xii.,   10)  ;  and,  living  so  near  to  their  enemies, 


42     THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

it  was  perhaps  not  best  to  call  attention  to  them. 
Perhaps  only  one  or  two  of  the  disciples  had 
gone  with  Jesus  on  this  occasion  to  Bethany; 
and  the  others,  hearing  of  the  miracle  from 
those  who  were  there,  might  not  have  thought  it 
more  important  than  those  in  their  own  narra- 
tions. Perhaps  —  but  why  multiply  suggestions  ? 
Who  can  answer  such  questions?  Why  does 
Luke  alone  relate  the  parables  of  the  Good 
Samaritan,  the  Pharisee  and  Publican,  and  the 
Prodigal  Son  ?  Any  explanation  is  better  than 
to  suppose  this  exquisitely  natural  and  touching 
narrative  an  invention.  If  nature  and  truth 
ever  put  their  seal  to  a  story,  it  is  here.  The 
little  picture  of  domestic  life  at  Bethany,  as  it 
appears  in  Luke  (x.,  38-42),  prepares  the  way 
for  the  narrative  in  John.  The  characters  of 
Martha  and  Mary  are  in  keeping  in  both  narra- 
tives. The  active  sister,  in  Luke's  picture,  is  the 
one  who  comes  first,  in  John's  account,  to  meet 
Jesus.  The  one  who  sat  at  his  feet,  in  the  story 
of  Luke,  is  the  sister  whose  tender  gratitude 
violates  all  utilitarian  considerations  in  the  gift 
of  ointment,  as  narrated  by  all  four  evangelists. 
But,  though  Matthew  and  Mark  tell  this  last 
story,  they  do  not  mention  the  name  of  Mary, — 


THE   PROBLEM   OF   THE   FOURTH   GOSPEL         43 

for  the  same  reason  apparently,  whatever  it  was, 
which  caused  their  silence  in  regard  to  the  rais- 
ing of  Lazarus.  Martha,  again,  who  in  Luke 
(x.,  40)  was  cumbered  with  much  serving,  true 
to  her  active  and  useful  tendencies  appears  also 
in  John  (xii.,  2)  as  serving  on  this  other  occa- 
sion. All  these  little  traits  combine  in  a  perfect 
picture ;  and  all  are  in  harmony  with  the  story 
of  the  raising  of  Lazarus,  which,  the  more  it  is 
read,  seems  ever  more  real. 

The  difference  between  the  Synoptics  and  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  as  regards  the  last  supper,  is 
sometimes  made  a  strong  reason  for  denying  the 
authenticity  of  the  latter.  According  to  the  first 
three  Gospels,  Jesus  eats  the  Passover  with  his 
disciples  on  the  regular  Jewish  festival  (14th 
Nisan),  and  then,  after  the  Paschal  supper,  in- 
stitutes his  own  memorial  feast.  He  is  cruci- 
fied on  the  next  day  (15th  Nisan),  Friday;  and 
the  bodies  are  taken  down  immediately,  so  as 
not  to  interfere  with  the  Sabbath.  Jesus  lies  in 
his  grave  on  Saturday  (the  Sabbath),  and  rises 
on  Sunday,  the  first  day  of  the  week. 

But,  according  to  John,  the  supper  (identified 
by  the  sop  given  to  Judas  [xiii.,  26]  and  the 
prediction   concerning   the   cock  to    Peter  [xiii,, 


44    THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

38])  was  the  previous  day  (13th  Nisan) :  since 
John  speaks  of  it  as  "before  the  feast  of  the 
Passover "  (xiii.,  i)  ;  since  Judas  goes  out,  as 
was  thought,  "  to  buy  the  things  needed  for  the 
feast "  (xiii.,  29)  ;  since,  on  the  next  day,  the 
Jews  were  still  to  eat  the  Passover  (xviii.,  28) ; 
and  since   it   was   the   preparation  for   it   (xix., 

14,  31)- 

There  is  one  method,  however,  of  explaining 
this  difficulty,  which  perhaps  has  never  been 
fully  presented,  and  which  we  submit  for  the 
consideration  of  our  readers.  John  has  been 
supposed  to  have  written  his  Gospel  when  he 
was  quite  an  old  man,  about  A.D.  80  or  90.  We 
must  not  think  of  him  as  composing  it  in  the 
way  men  write  purely  literary  works, —  as  one 
connected  whole.  He  wrote  it,  or,  more  prob- 
ably, dictated  it,  as  he  was  able,  in  fragments 
and  parts.  From  time  to  time,  he  wrote  down 
or  dictated  some  particular  passage  of  his  Mas- 
ter's life  or  some  special  conversation.  After- 
ward, they  were  put  together  in  the  best  way 
either  by  himself  or  by  some  one  else  after  his 
death.  There  are  many  indications  of  this  frag- 
mentary manner  of  composition  in  the  Gospel 
itself.     There  is   no  natural   connection   in   the 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL    45 

narrative.  Often,  an  artificial  connection  is  sup- 
plied, as  though  the  amanuensis  had  asked  the 
apostle,  "  When  did  this  happen  ? "  and  he  had 
replied,  "  That  happened  the  next  day  "  (John  i., 
29),  "  this  was  the  next  day  after  "  (i.,  35),  "  and 
this,  I  recollect,  was  the  day  after  that "  (i.,  43). 
"It  took  about  two  days  to  go  to  Galilee,  so 
this  must  have  been  on  the  third  day"  (ii.,  i). 
The  amanuensis  may  be  supposed  to  have  asked, 
"  How  long  did  he  stay  there  ?  "  and  been  an- 
swered, "Not  many  days "  (ii.,  12).  The  whole 
impression  given  in  reading  the  Gospel  is  as  if 
the  aged  apostle  had  been  surrounded  by  a 
group  of  younger  Christians,  who  asked  him 
questions  about  his  recollections  of  Jesus,  and 
wrote  down  his  answers.  "  Tell  us,"  they  would 
say,  "  about  Nicodemus"  ;  or  "  Tell  us  of  the 
Christ's  conversation  at  the  last  supper " ;  or 
"  Tell  us  all  you  can  remember  of  his  conversa- 
tions with  the  Jews  at  the  feasts."  So,  when  he 
told  them  about  Jesus  washing  his  disciples'  feet, 
they  probably  asked,  "  When  was  this  ? "  and  he 
answered,  "Before  the  feast  of  the  Passover." 
But,  in  arranging  the  different  papers  on  which 
were  written  down  these  conversations  and  inci- 
dents, they  may  have  sometimes  misplaced  them. 


46    THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

Let  US  suppose  the  Gospel  to  be  printed 
as  a  collection  of  separate  reminiscences,  and 
not  a  continuous  whole ;  and,  instead  of  being 
divided  into  chapters  and  verses,  to  be  num- 
bered Recollections  i,  2,  3,  which  the  reader  is 
at  liberty  to  arrange  as  he  pleases, —  what  will  be 
the  result  as  to  the  supper  ? 

First,  it  would  appear  that  the  whole  passage 
contained  in  John  xiii.  and  John  xiv.  (with  an 
exception  to  be  noticed  presently)  is  an  account, 
not  of  the  Paschal  feast  at  which  the  supper  was 
instituted ;  but,  as  Lightfoot  and  others  have  sup- 
posed, of  a  supper  which  Jesus  and  his  apostles 
took  in  company  a  day  or  two  before.  This 
would  account  for  the  introductory  phrase,  "  Be- 
fore the  feast  of  the  Passover,"  and  for  the  clos- 
ing summons,  otherwise  inexplicable,  "Arise; 
let  us  go  hence." 

All  readers  have  doubtless  been  struck  with 
this  last  sentence.  Why  did  Jesus  say,  "  Arise ; 
let  us  go  hence,"  and  then  go  on  with  a  long 
series  of  remarks,  extending  through  sixty  verses, 
and  closing  with  the  prayer  in  chap.  xvii.  ?  If 
he  arose  to  go,  and  then  changed  his  mind,  why 
did  John  record  at  all  the  proposal  to  leave  the 
room  at  that  moment,  which  thus  became  insig- 


THE   PROBLEM   OF   THE  FOURTH   GOSPEL         47 

nificant  ?  The  simple  and  natural  explanation 
is  that  they  did  leave  the  room,  and  close  the 
conversation  then ;  and  what  follows  in  the  next 
three  chapters  is  the  recollection  of  another  con- 
versation at  another  time,  not  sufficiently  distin- 
guished by  the  compiler  of  these  Johannine 
fragments.  This  second  conversation  (chaps. 
XV.,  xvi.,  xvii.)  probably  belongs  to  the  institu- 
tion of  the  supper,  and  is  a  supplement  to  the 
account  of  that  transaction  as  told  by  the  Synop- 
tics. Its  opening  words,  "  I  am  the  true  vine," 
connect  themselves  naturally  with  the  words 
(recorded  by  Matthew  and  Mark),  "  I  will  not 
drink  henceforth  of  this  fruit  of  the  vine,  till  the 
day  when  I  drink  it  new  with  you  in  my  Father's 
kingdom."  For  "  I  am  the  true  vine,"  etc. 
The  '''-new  wine"  is  thus  explained  to  be  the 
new  communion, — inward,  and  not  outward, —  by 
w^hich  Jesus  was  to  be  no  longer  with  them  as  a 
companion  and  friend,  but  in  them  as  a  life  and 
inspiration.  The  connection  is  then  complete. 
The  principal  subject  of  the  first  conversation, 
introduced  by  the  washing  of  the  feet,  was  their 
duty  to  serve  and  help  each  other  after  he  was 
gone.  The  chief  topic  of  the  second  conversa- 
tion, introduced  by  the  Lord's  Supper,  was  their 


48    THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

communion  with  him  and  common  life  in  him. 
The  only  difficulty  in  this  explanation  is  the 
passage  (John  xiii.,  21-38)  containing  the  ac- 
count of  the  sop  given  to  Judas,  and  the  predic- 
tion of  Peter's  fall  and  the  cock-crow.  These, 
according  to  the  Synoptics,  belong  to  the  second 
conversation  at  the  Paschal  supper,  on  Thurs- 
day evening,  and,  if  so,  have  been  misplaced, 
and  inserted  by  mistake  here.  This  mistake  was 
probably  occasioned  by  verse  18,  in  which  Jesus 
alluded  to  his  betrayer  on  the  first  evening, 
but  less  distinctly  than  on  the  second.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  passage  in  Luke  (xxii.,  24-30) 
seems  evidently  to  belong  to  the  first  conversa- 
tion, and  to  the  washing  of  feet.  With  this  alter- 
ation, the  chief  difficulty  is  removed. 

We  may  say,  in  fact,  that  by  this  change  the 
whole  difficulty  of  the  chronology  of  Passion 
Week  is  removed.  For  the  passage  in  John 
(xviii.,  28)  about  the  Jews  not  going  into  the 
judgment-hall  lest  they  should  be  defiled,  "but 
that  they  might  eat  the  Passover,"  is  explained 
by  John  xix.,  14,  which  calls  this  day  the  '^prep- 
aration for  the  Passover "  (compared  with  verse 
31,  which  makes  it  the  preparation  for  the  Pas- 
chal Sabbath,  which  was  the  great  day  of  the 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL    49 

feast ;  and  also  compared  with  Mark  xv.,  42,  and 
Luke  xxiii.,  54,  "because  it  was  the  preparation, 
—  that  is,  the  day  before  the  Sabbath").  The 
Jews  would  not  go  into  Pilate's  hall,  but  not 
because  that  would  prevent  them  from  eating 
the  Paschal  supper  that  evening;  for  it  would 
not  have  done  so.  If  the  Paschal  Supper  was 
still  to  be  eaten  that  evening,  then  the  feast  had 
not  begun;  and  going  into  Pilate's  hall  would 
not  have  defiled  them.  So  Lightfoot  declares, 
and  there  can  be  no  higher  authority  for  Hebrew ' 
usages.  "To  eat  the  Passover"  (John  xviii., 
28)  he  understands  to  refer  to  the  feast  on  the 
second  evening  of  the  Paschal  season,  when,  as 
the  festival  was  actually  in  progress,  the  Jews 
would  have  become  ceremonially  defiled  by  enter- 
ing the  Roman  praetorium. 

The  difference  between  the  Fourth  Gospel  and 
the  Revelation  is  so  great,  say  many  critics,  that, 
if  John,  the  apostle,  wrote  the  one,  he  could  not 
have  written  the  other.     To  this,  we  reply :  — 

I.  The  differences  are  more  superficial  than 
essential,  rather  those  which  touch  the  form 
than  such  as  affect  the  substance.  Suppose  the 
Apocalypse  to  have  been  written  in  the  midst 
of  the  horrors  of  the  first   persecutions,  when 


50     THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

the  writer  was  comparatively  young,  and  all  the 
passionate  fire  of  his  heart  and  imagination  was 
thrown  into  this  ecstatic  vision ;  and  that  the 
Gospel  was  dictated  thirty  years  after,  when  he 
had  meditated  deeply,  and  when  a  long  Chris- 
tian experience  had  purified  his  soul, — then 
there  need  not  be  any  such  difficulty  in  suppos- 
ing one  man  the  author  of  both.  The  differ- 
ence between  them  is  not  so  great  as  between 
Swedenborg's  Algebra  and  his  Heaven  and  Hell; 
his  treatise  on  Docks^  Sluices^  and  Salt-works^  and 
the  Arcana  Coelestia;  his  large  folio  volumes  on 
Mines  and  Mining  and  his  Apocalypse  Revealed. 
Baur  himself  finds  points  of  contact  between  the 
Fourth  Gospel  and  the  Apocalypse,  though  he 
thinks  that  the  writer  of  the  Gospel  purposely 
imitated  the  latter  book.*  "It  cannot  be  de- 
nied," says  Baur,  "that  the  evangelist  wished 
to  give  his  book  the  authority  of  the  apostle 
who  wrote  the  Apocalypse,  and  so  assumed  the 
same  intellectual  position.  There  is  not  merely 
an  outward  support  in  the  name  of  the  highly 
revered  apostle,  but  there  are  not  wanting  many 
internal  resemblances  between  the  Gospel  and 
the  Apocalypse.  In  fact,  one  must  admire  the 
deep  genial  sympathy  and  the  delicate  skill  which 

*  Baur,  Das  Christenthwn,  etc.     Tubingen,  i860. 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL    SI 

the  writer  has  shown  in  finding  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse elements  which  could  be  developed  into 
the  loftier  and  larger  views  of  the  evangelist. 
He  has  thus  spiritualized  the  Book  of  Revela- 
tion into  a  Gospel."  The  amount  of  which  is 
that  Baur  does  not  find  the  Gospel  so  essen- 
tially different  from  the  Apocalypse  as  Mr.  Tay- 
ler  and  others  do. 

2.  But,  if  we  must  choose  between  the  Apoca- 
lypse and  the  Gospel  as  apostolic  writings,  ever>' 
thing  should  lead  us  to  surrender  the  first.  The 
authorship  of  the  Gospel  was  never  doubted  by 
antiquity:  that  of  the  Apocalypse  was.  At  the 
end  of  the  second  century,  when  the  Christian 
scriptures  were  distributed  into  those  which 
were  unquestioned,  those  which  were  doubtful, 
and  those  which  were  spurious,  the  Gospel  was 
placed  in  the  first  division,  and  the  Book  of 
Revelation  in  the  second. 

One  objection  urged  against  the  Fourth  Gos- 
pel is  its  anti-Jewish  tone  of  thought.  Granting 
this  in  the  main,  we  yet  find  such  expressions 
as  that  used  to  the  Samaritan  woman, —  "We 
know  what  we  worship ;  for  salvation  is  from  the 
Jews."  But  it  is  thought  that,  if  the  apostle 
wrote  the  Apocalypse,  which  is  strongly  Jewish, 


52    THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

he  could  not  so  soon  after  have  changed  his 
tone  so  entirely.  But  is  the  writer  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse so  Jewish,  when  a  part  of  his  object  is  to 
announce  judgments  on  Jerusalem  ?  And,  again, 
why  may  not  John  have  risen  above  his  Jewish 
tendencies  into  a  universal  Christianity,  since 
Paul  passed  through  the  same  change?  It  is 
said  that,  if  Jesus  had  really  taught  as  anti- 
Jewish  a  gospel  as  is  represented  by  John,  the 
struggle  between  Paul  and  his  opponents  could 
never  have  taken  place.  But  this  is  to  ignore 
the  universal  tendency  in  men  and  sects  to 
notice  only  that  which  is  in  accord  with  their 
own  prejudices. 

V. 

We  have  seen  Holtzmann's  account  of  the 
latest  opinions  on  this  question.  The  earlier 
history  of  belief  in  regard  to  this  Gospel  is  as 
follows.  It  is  supposed  to  be  referred  to  by 
Luke  and  Mark  (De  Wette).  The  apostoHc 
Fathers  do  not  refer  to  it  directly,  but  Eusebius 
tells  us  that  Papias  made  use  of  testimonies 
from  the  First  Epistle  of  John.  Papias  had 
been  a  hearer  of  John  in  his  youth,  and  was 
an  Asiatic  bishop  in  the  middle  of  the  second 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL    53 

century.  Justin  Martyr,  in  the  middle  of  the 
second  century ;  Tatian ;  and  the  Clementine 
Homilies  contain  passages  so  strikingly  like 
those  in  the  Gospel  that  they  appear  to  have 
been  taken  from  it.*  Johannic  formulas  are 
found  in  the  Gnostic  writings,  about  A.D.  140, 
The  first  distinct  declaration,  however,  that  the 
Apostle  John  was  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gos- 
pel comes  about  A.D.  180,  from  Theophilus  of 
Antioch,  who  quotes  the  passage,  "  In  the  begin- 
ning was  the  Word."  After  this,  it  is  continu- 
ally quoted  and  referred  to  by  all  the  great 
writers  at  the  end  of  the  second  and  beginning 
of  the  third  century, —  as  Irenaeus,  Bishop  of 
Lyons,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Tertullian  of 
Carthage,  and  Origen.  None  of  these  scholars 
express  any  doubt  concerning  the  authorship  of 
the  Gospel ;  and  their  quotations  from  it  are  so 
numerous  that,  if  it  were  lost,  it  might  almost 
be  reconstructed  from  their  writings. 

The  first  doubts  of  the  authenticity  of  the  Gos- 
pel (unless  we  consider  its  rejection  by  the  Alogi 
to  be  based  on  critical  reasons)  are  brought  for- 
ward in  the  seventeenth  century,  in  England,  by 

*See  Ezra  Abbot's  Author  ship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  in  which, 
after  the  most  thorough  critical  inquiry,  he  concludes  that  it  must  have 
been  quoted  by  Justin,  and  made  a  part  of  Tatian's  Diatessaron. 


54    THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

some  unknown  writer,  and  were  refuted  by  the 
great  scholar,  Le  Clerc.  After  this  there  fol- 
lowed a  silence  of  a  hundred  years,  when  the 
attack  was  renewed  in  1792  by  another  Eng- 
lishman,—  Evanson.  Nothing  more  was  heard 
on  the  subject;  and  the  replies  to  these  doubts 
seemed  to  have  satisfied  all  minds,  when  Bret- 
schneider,  in  1820,  made  another  assault  in  the 
Frobahilia.  He  was  replied  to  by  a  multitude 
of  critics,  and  afterward  retracted  his  opinion, 
and  admitted  that  his  objections  had  been  fully 
answered.*  No  other  opponent  to  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  Gospel  appeared  till  1835,  when  Dr. 
Strauss,  in  his  Life  of  Jesus,  renewed  the  attack, 
and  was  answered  by  Neander,  Tholuck,  Hase, 
Liicke,  and  others.  Dr.  Strauss,  moved  by  these 
replies,  retracted  his  doubts  in  1838,  but  ad- 
vanced them  again  in  1840.! 

Then  arose  the  famous  schoo.  of  Tiibingen, 
from  which  all  the  recent  attacks  on  the  Gospel 
have  been  derived.  Mr.  Tayler  and  other 
writers,  both  French  and  English,  who  have 
taken  the  negative  side,  seem  only  followers  of 
Baur  and  Zeller.  Dr.  F.  C.  Baur,  a  truly  great 
man,  began  his  immense  labors  with  a  work  on 

*  Handbttck  der  Dogmatik,  §  34,  note. 

t  R6ville,  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,  May,  1886. 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH 

mythology,  published  in  1824,  and 
them  by  several  other  works,  published  ev( 
year,  in  different  departments  of  theology,  until 
his  death.  His  vast  learning,  great  industry, 
acute  insight,  and  love  of  truth  make  his  writings 
very  valuable.  The  integrity  of  his  mind  was 
such  that,  even  when  carrying  on  a  controversy, 
he  seems  more  like  an  inquirer  than  a  disputant. 
Even  when  differing  from  his  conclusions,  one 
derives  very  valuable  suggestions  from  his  views. 
One  characteristic  of  the  criticism  of  Baur  is 
his  doctrine  of  intention.  He  ascribes  to  the 
New  Testament  writers  a  special  aim,  which 
leads  them  to  exaggerate  some  facts  and  omit 
or  invent  others.  Everywhere,  he  seeks  for  an 
intention,  for  some  private  or  party  purpose 
which  colors  the  narrative,  and  in  the  present 
instance  ascribes  to  the  writer  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel  the  deliberate  purpose  of  passing  himself 
off  as  the  apostle,  in  order  to  impose  on  the 
Christian  Church  his  doctrine  of  the  Logos. 
This  attack  roused  new  defenders  of  the  Gospel, 
among  whom  the  most  conspicuous  have  been 
Ewald  and  Tischendorf. 

Some  critics,  who  reject  the  apostolic  origin  of 
this  Gospel,  acquit  the  writer  of  any  purpose  of 


56    THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

deceiving  his  readers.  But  if  we  assume,  with 
Baur,  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  a  work  of  fiction, 
written  in  the  second  century,  I  think  we  must 
go  further,  and  agree  with  him  that  it  was  in- 
tended to  appear  as  coming  from  the  apostle. 
Else  why  were  so  many  names  of  persons  and 
places  introduced,  well  known  to  the  readers  of 
the  other  evangelists  ^  Why  were  the  real  facts 
•of  the  life  of  Jesus  so  skilfully  interwoven  in  the 
narrative?  Why  the  assertion  in  regard  to  its 
being  written  by  John,  "  This  is  the  disciple 
who  wrote  these  things,  and  testifieth  of  these 
things  ;  and  we  know  that  his  testimony  is  true  "  } 
The  Fourth  Gospel,  if  not  an  authentic  narrative, 
is  the  most  remarkable  and  only  entirely  suc- 
cessful literary  imposition  on  record.  It  has 
deceived  the  whole  Church  for  eighteen  hundred 
years. 

VI. 

It  is  a  remark  of  Lord  Bacon  that  "the  har- 
mony of  a  science,  supporting  each  part  the 
other,  is  and  ought  to  be  the  true  and  brief  con- 
futation and  suppression  of  the  smaller  sorts  of 
objections."  This  sagacious  observation  indi- 
cates another  method  of  deciding  this  question. 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL    S7 

Of  these  two  views,  the  one  attributing  the  Gos- 
pel to  the  Apostle  John,  the  other  to  an  anony- 
mous writer  in  the  middle  of  the  second  century, 
—  which  gives  us  the  most  harmonious  and  con- 
sistent story?  Let  us  look  at  each  opinion  in 
reference  to  this  question. 

According  to  the  received  opinion  of  the 
Church,  John,  the  apostle,  composed  this  Gospel 
at  Ephesus,  in  his  old  age.  As  years  and 
thought  and  intense  religious  life  changed  Swe- 
denborg,  the  miner  and  engineer,  into  the  great 
visionary  and  mystic,  so  years  and  thought  and 
inward  inspiration  had  changed  the  Jewish  dis- 
ciple, first  into  a  visionary,  and  later  into  a  mys- 
tic. In  his  lonely  exile  at  Patmos,  his  vivid 
imagination  had  made  a  series  of  pictures,  rep- 
resenting symbolically  the  struggle  of  Christi- 
anity with  the  Jewish  and  Roman  power,  and  its 
ultimate  triumph.  "  Every  man,"  says  Coleridge, 
"is  a  Shakspere  in  his  dreams."  Day  by  day, 
these  dreams  came  to  John ;  and  he  wrote  down 
the  visions,  and  they  were  collected  into  the 
Book  of  Revelation.  When  he  returned  to  ac' 
tive  life  and  the  service  of  the  Seven  Churches 
of  Asia,  he  came  in  contact  with  a  new  order  of 
thought,   for  which    he   had   a   natural   affinity. 


SS  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

This  was  the  Platonic  and  Mystic  school  of  Philo, 
which  laid  the  greatest  stress  on  the  distinction 
between  the  spirit  and  the  letter,  between  the 
hidden  and  revealed  Deity,  and  between  the 
Logos,  or  reason  of  God,  and  the  same  light  shin- 
ing in  the  soul  of  man.  Contact  with  this  school 
ripened  in  the  mind  of  the  apostle  the  mystic 
tendency  peculiar  to  him, —  for  there  is  a  true 
mysticism  as  well  as  a  false.  The  apostle,  mysti- 
cal, in  the  best  sense,  loved  to  look  on  spiritual 
facts  as  substantial  realities.  Hence,  his  fond- 
ness for  such  expressions  as  Truth,  Life,  Light, 
Spirit,  and  his  conception  of  the  Messiah  as  the 
Son,  Well-beloved,  and  dwelling  in  the  bosom  of 
the  Father.  His  recollections  of  Jesus  reposed 
especially  on  those  deeper  conversations  in  which 
his  Master's  thought  took  this  direction.  These 
conversations  had  been  more  frequent  at  Jeru- 
salem, where  Jesus  had  encountered  minds  of  a 
higher  culture:  therefore,  John  loved  to  repeat 
these.  Then,  in  his  old  age,  when  the  oral  tradi- 
tions, which  made  the  staple  of  apostolic  preach- 
ing, had  taken  form  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  the 
disciples  of  John  begged  him  to  write  for  them, 
or  dictate  to  them,  these  other  relations  concern- 
ing Jesus,  with  which  they  had  become  familiar. 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL    59 

So  they  were  repeated,  and  afterward  collected 
in  a  Gospel  "according  to  John";  and  its  uni- 
versal reception  in  the  Christian  Church  by  so 
many  different  schools  of  thought,  as  early  as 
the  middle  of  the  last  half  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, shows  that  there  could  be  no  doubt  of  its 
origin.  In  its  essence,  it  is  a  true  picture  of 
Jesus,  seen  on  one  side  of  his  life  and  doctrine. 
Some  errors  of  expression  and  of  collocation  of 
passages  may  have  occurred;  and  sometimes 
the  mind  of  John  himself  may  have  colored  the 
teachings  of  his  Master.  But  in  the  main  it  is  a 
true  picture,  not  of  John  only,  but  also  of  Christ. 

Let  us  now  look  at  the  other  explanation,  as 
proposed  by  Baur,  Albert  Rdville,  and  others. 

This  theory  assumes  that,  while  the  whole  body 
of  apostles  and  early  disciples  were  teaching  to 
the  churches  that  view  of  Jesus  and  his  doctrine 
which  finally  took  form  in  the  first  three  Gospels, 
another  and  a  wholly  different  school  of  opinion 
was  being  developed  in  the  Church,  indepen- 
dently of  the  apostles.  This  school  was  derived 
from  the  Alexandrian  philosophy,  and  yet  grew  up 
within  the  Christian  Church.  It  held  firmly  to 
the  Logos  doctrine  of  Philo,  but  needed  some 
point  of  contact  with  the  teachings   of   Christ. 


6o    THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

This  led  an  unknown  writer,  in  the  first  half  of 
the  second  century,  to  write  another  Gospel,  and 
introduce  into  it  Jesus  teaching  the  doctrines  of 
the  Alexandrian  school.  The  narrations  peculiar 
to  this  Gospel  are  held  to  be  inventions, —  the 
story  of  the  woman  of  Samaria,  of  Nicodemus,  of 
the  marriage  at  Cana,  of  the  man  born  blind,  the 
raising  of  Lazams,  the  washing  of  the  disciples' 
feet,  the  wonderful  descriptions  of  the  last  days 
of  Jesus,  of  the  arrest,  trial,  crucifixion,  and  res- 
urrection. The  sublime  teachings  of  this  Gospel 
are  due  to  this  unknown  writer :  the  sayings 
which  have  helped  to  change  the  world  were 
pure  inventions.  Jesus  never  said,  "God  is  a 
spirit,  and  those  who  worship  him  must  worship 
him  in  spirit  and  in  truth "  :  our  false  gospeller 
put  it  in  his  mouth.  Jesus  never  uttered  the  sub- 
lime prayer  with  his  disciples,  recorded  in  the 
seventeenth  chapter, —  a  prayer  which  has 
touched  the  hearts  of  so  many  generations. 
This  also  was  composed  in  cold  blood,  in  order 
to  make  the  story  more  interesting.  The  tender 
words  from  the  cross,  "  Woman,  behold  thy 
son !  "  and  "  Behold  thy  mother !  "  are  an  unau- 
thorized interpolation  in  that  sacred  agony. 
Mary's  recognition  of  her  risen   Master  by  the 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL    6l 

tone  in  which  he  spoke  her  name,  and  the 
"Rabboni!"  with  its  untranslatable  world  of 
feeling, —  these,  too,  are  the  adroit  fabrications 
of  our  apocryphist.  And  this  new  Gospel,  thus 
invented,  is  accepted,  without  a  question,  doubt, 
or  hesitation,  in  every  part  of  the  Christian 
Church.  Other  books  of  Scripture  they  lingered 
over,  doubtful  of  their  right  to  enter  the  canon. 
But  this  bold-faced  forgery  all  parties,  all  sects, 
all  schools,  all  the  great  theologians  and  scholars, 
accepted  at  once,  without  a  question ;  and  this, 
too,  when  it  was  written  with  the  express  purpose 
of  teaching  them  what  they  did  not  already  be- 
lieve, and  which  was  in  direct  opposition  to  their 
authentic  and  received  Gospels  !  Simply  to  state 
such  a  position  is  to  show  its  weakness. 

VII. 
In  the  passage  John  v.,  17-47,  there  seems,  at 
first  sight,  a  self-assertion  on  the  part  of  Jesus 
not  in  harmony  with  his  calm,  impersonal  teach- 
ing in  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  But,  if  we  look 
below  the  letter  and  phrase,  we  shall  find  two 
ideas  intertwined  throughout,  both  of  which  are 
fully  expressed  in  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke. 
■  One  is  the  conviction  that  God  is  his  Father,  in 


62     THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

which  conviction  he  finds  pure  insight,  the  sense 
of  divine  love,  and  abiUty  to  raise  mankind  into 
spiritual  life.  The  other  is  the  constantly  re- 
peated declaration  that  this  knowledge,  power, 
and  love  are  continually  derived  from  a  higher 
source ;  that  he  can  do  nothing  of  himself ;  that 
he  is  a  son  of  God  only  while  depending  on  the 
Father.  He  is  thus  teaching,  in  another  form, 
exactly  what  we  find  declared  in  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount.  Throughout  that  discourse,  Jesus 
speaks  with  the  sa-me  irresistible  authority  of 
conviction.  The  difference  is  that  in  John  he 
claims  for  himself  what  in  Matthew  he  claims 
for  his  disciples.  He  asserts  for  them  that  they 
are  children  of  the  Father,  that  they  therefore 
can  and  ought  to  be  filled  with  his  spirit,  to 
be  perfect  as  he  is  perfect,  to  forgive  as  he 
forgives.  They  are  the  salt  of  the  earth,  the 
light  of  the  world.  They  are  to  love  as  God 
loves,  and  to  be  a  blessing  to  their  enemies  as 
well  as  their  friends.  And  this  will  come  to 
them  by  living  in  dependence  on  their  Father  in 
heaven,  asking  and  receiving,  seeking  and  find- 
ing. The  self-assertion  of  Jesus  in  John  is  no 
greater  than  when  (Matt,  xi.,  28)  he  declares  his 
power  to  give  rest  to  all  the  sorrows  of  earth, 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL    6$ 

than  when  (Matt,  xxv.,  3 1)  he  represents  himself 
as  the  judge  of  mankind,  or  (Matt,  xxviii.,  18)  as- 
serts that  all  power  is  given  to  him  in  heaven  and 
earth.  In  all  cases,  it  is  the  expression  of  the 
same  law, —  that  entire  obedience  to  divine  truth, 
with  perfect  dependence  on  the  divine  will,  gives 
to  the  soul  a  fulness  of  insight,  power,  and  love. 
If,  then,  we  see  that  the  central  thought  in  John 
and  the  Synoptics  is  the  same,  we  may  willingly 
admit  that  the  phraseology  in  the  Fourth  Gospel 
is  colored  by  the  idiosyncrasy  of  the  writer,  and 
does  not  wholly  represent  the  transparent  clear- 
ness of  the  original  expressions  of  Jesus.  Such 
is  probably  the  fact.  The  thoughts  and  the  life 
of  Jesus  sank  deep  into  the  soul  of  John,  but 
were  sometimes  reproduced  in  his  own  language. 
Some  men  can  remember  words  more  easily  than 
ideas;  but,  with  others,  the  words  pass  away 
while  the  thoughts  remain.  If  the  latter  was  the 
characteristic  of  our  apostle's  mind,  it  will  largely 
account  for  the  difference  between  himself  and 
the  Synoptics,  in  regard  to  their  reports  of  the 
teaching  of  Christ.  The  deeper  thoughts  es- 
caped the  apprehension  of  the  latter,  but  the 
practical  teaching  of  Jesus  they  have  reported  ver- 
bally.   John  gives  us  the  profounder  thoughts  and 


64  THE   PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH   GOSPEL 

loftier  visions  of  his  Master's  soul,  but  often 
slightly  disguised  in  terminology  of  his  own. 
He  was,  like  Paul,  a  faithful  minister  of  the 
spirit,  if  not  of  the  letter,  of  the  new  covenant. 

It  may  be  said,  "  If  we  have  not  the  very  lan- 
guage of  Jesus,  how  can  we  know  what  he  himself 
really  taught,  and  what  belongs  to  his  reporter?  " 
This  difficulty  is  not  so  great  as  it  at  first  appears. 
If  we  have  once  become  acquainted  with  the 
mind  of  Christ,  we  shall  be  able  to  distinguish 
what  is  in  harmony  with  it.  The  Gospel  cannot 
contradict  itself.  The  merely  critical  understand- 
ing is  like  the  natural  man  who  receiveth  not  the 
things  of  the  spirit  of  God.  They  are  spiritually 
discerned.  He  who  has  the  spirit  of  his  Master 
judgeth  all  things. 

This  appears  to  be  the  doctrine  taught  by 
Jesus  himself  in  his  conversation  with  Nicode- 
mus.  Nicodemus  rested  his  belief  in  the  author- 
ity of  Jesus  on  his  wonderful  works,  on  the  signs 
and  miracles.  Jesus  refused  to  be  accepted  on 
that  ground,  and  declared  spiritual  insight  nec- 
essary, in  order  to  see  the  kingdom  of  God.  He 
intimates  that,  by  such  methods  of  reasoning 
from  outward  facts,  only  an  outward  and  earthly 
Messiah  can   be  inferred.     That  which  is   born 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  y^CBt*^'  '^5    ">. 

({  ^^7v'  '"'     ''"^^ 
of  the  flesh  is  flesh.     Jesus  spoke \^o  me  *^J?^S7yy 

from  a  profound  spiritual  insight,  ami^Aefyrf^l^ily^^ 
ceived  not  his  witness.  Except  they  saw  si| 
and  wonders,  they  would  not  believe.  This  re- 
fusal by  Jesus  to  accept  a  belief  based  on  mir- 
acles accords  with  such  sayings  in  the  Synop- 
tics as  that  "  an  evil  generation  seeketh  for  a 
sign."  According  to  Nicodemus,  faith  in  Jesus 
must  rest  on  his  miracles.  According  to  Jesus, 
the  miracles  must  rest  on  faith.  "  He  did  not 
many  mighty  works  there,  because  of  their  un- 
belief." Thus,  we  find,  both  in  John  and  the 
Synoptics,  a  revelation  of  the  mind  of  Christ  in 
regard  to  this  point. 

In  this  conversation  with  Nicodemus  and  what 
follows,  it  has  always  been  found  difficult  to 
discriminate  between  the  sayings  of  Jesus  and 
that  portion  which  comes  from  John.  The 
method  we  suggest  is  the  best  way  of  solving 
the  problem.  Find  what  part  of  the  passage  is 
in  harmony  with  the  mind  of  Christ,  and  we  can- 
not be  far  wrong. 

The  conversation  with  the  woman  of  Samaria 
carries  with  it  the  stamp  of  reality  throughout. 
As,  in  the  Synoptics,  Jesus  is  called  "  the  friend 
of  publicans   and  sinners,"  so  here  he  appears 


66  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

again  as  the  friend  of  a  sinner.  As,  in  the 
Synoptics,  he  lays  the  highest  stress  on  that 
prayer  which  is  not  to  be  seen  of  man,  so  here 
he  teaches  that  those  who  worship  must  worj^hip 
the  Father  in  spirit  and  truth.  As,  in  the  Synop- 
tics, he  is  found  in  kindly  and  helpful  relations 
with  Romans  and  Phoenicians,  so  here  he  makes 
himself  the  friend  of  a  Samaritan.  Besides  the 
realistic  truth  of  the  narrative,  we  see  that  its 
substance  is  in  harmony  with  the  mind  of  Christ. 

The  strong  affection  which  Jesus  felt  for  his 
disciples,  and  his  constant  habit  of  identifying 
himself  with  them,  is  apparent  in  the  Synoptic 
narratives.  "  He  that  receiveth  you  receiveth 
me;  and  he  that  receiveth  me  receiveth  him 
that  sent  me."  This  love  reaches  its  highest  ex- 
pression in  John,  especially  in  the  last  conversa- 
tions and  in  the  sublimity  of  the  closing  prayer. 
In  these  final  hours,  the  human  affection  is 
glorified  in  an  immortal  love.  "  I  in  them,  and 
thou  in  me,  that  they  may  be  perfectly  one."  In 
this,  as  in  other  instances,  we  see  that,  while  the 
fundamental  thought  is  the  same  in  all  the  evan- 
gelists, it  reaches  its  most  profound  and  elevated 
form  in  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

The  Fourth  Gospel  has  been  claimed  as  con- 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL    6^ 

taining  the  strongest  proofs  of  the  divinity  of 
Jesus.  Certainly,  the  spiritual  element  in  the 
Master  is  most  highly  emphasized  in  this;  but 
it  is  also  certain  that  his  pure  humanity  and 
absolute  dependence  on  God  are  also  as  strongly 
pronounced.  It  is  asserted  that  the  supernatu- 
ral nature  of  Jesus  is  plainly  taught  by  John. 
But  Dr.  Edwin  A.  Abbott  calls  attention  to  the 
fact  that  this  Gospel,  even  more  than  the  others, 
brings  out  the  purely  human  element  in  Jesus; 
as  when  (John  x.,  33)  he  puts  his  position  as 
Son  of  God  by  the  side  of  that  of  the  Jewish 
prophets.  Dr.  Abbott  adds  that  the  special  privi- 
lege of  pre-existence  disappears  in  the  words, 
"  Did  this  man  sin,  or  his  fathers,  that  he  was 
born  blind  ? "  and  says  that  the  works  of  Jesus 
are  represented  by  John  as  conformed  to  un- 
changing law,  and  not  as  the  result  of  super- 
natural interposition. 

Our  conclusions  in  regard  to  the  source  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  are,  therefore,  these  :  — 

It  is  very  improbable  that  it  should  have  pro- 
ceeded from  a  writer  in  the  second  century,  out- 
side of  Christian  tradition,  and  importing  into 
it  a  non-Christian  element.  Such  an  apocry- 
phal Gospel  would  not  have  been  received  with- 


68     THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

out  leaving  marked  traces  of  opposition.  No 
such  traces  exist  in  history.  The  apocryphal 
Gospels  which  have  come  down  to  us  show  no 
such  creative  power,  or  harmony  with  the  spirit 
of  Jesus,  as  is  found  in  the  Fourth  Gospel ;  and 
their  speedy  rejection  indicates  that  the  Church 
was  watchful,  and  ready  to  detect  any  such  pre- 
tenders. 

It  is  also  improbable  that  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
in  the  form  in  which  it  has  come  to  us,  should 
have  been  written  by  John  himself.  Its  diver- 
gence from  the  Synoptics,  as  pointed  out  above, 
is  evidence  of  this. 

The  traditions  concerning  Jesus,  contained  in 
this  venerable  document,  must  have  come  from 
John,  since  it  was  received  by  the  churches 
as  "the  Gospel  according  to  John."  But  these 
communications,  made  from  time  to  time  to  his 
disciples,  were  perhaps  collected  after  his  death, 
and  put  in  shape  by  one  of  them,  with  the  pur- 
pose of  being  used  as  a  support  for  the  high 
spiritual  view  of  Jesus  and  his  teaching,  which 
they  had  received  from  John's  lips  during  his  life. 

Our  conclusions  as  to  the  contents  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  are  as  follows  :  — 

One   part  of   the   contents  of  this  work   pro- 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL         69 

duces,  in  a  slightly  different  form,  the  Synoptic 
traditions.  Some  of  these  have  been  already 
mentioned. 

Another  part  of  the  Gospel  gives  traditions 
concerning  the  life  and  teachings  of  Jesus  not 
contained  in  the  Synoptics.  Many  of  these  are 
of  great  value,  giving  a  larger,  deeper,  and 
higher  view  of  the  character  of  Jesus  than  can 
be  derived  from  the  other  evangelists.  John, 
by  his  spiritual  constitution,  was  able  to  appro- 
priate and  retain  some  of  the  loftiest  elements 
in  the  soul  of  his  Master,  which  escaped  the  less 
sensitive  susceptibilities  of  his  companions. 

Another  element  in  this  Gospel  is  that  which 
comes  from  the  mind  of  John  himself.  His  words 
are  often  so  blended  with  those  of  Jesus  that  the 
only  distinguishing  test  is  the  analogy  of  faith,  or 
the  mind  of  Christ.  What  accords  with  that  is 
from  him  :  whatever  is  discordant  belongs  to  a 
lower  source.  When  particles  of  iron  are  mixed 
with  sand,  if  we  move  them  with  a  magnet,  the 
iron  adheres  to  it,  and  can  thus  be  separated 
from  the  rest.  He  who  has  the  mind  of  Christ, 
he  who  has  become  familiar  with  the  spirit  of 
the  Master,  can  often  attain  a  like  power  of  dis- 
crimination. 


70    THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL 

There  may  finally  remain  a  small  residuum, 
coming  from  the  imperfect  insight  or  memory  of 
those  who  reported  John's  teaching.  An  exam- 
ple of  this  is  given  above,  which,  if  accepted, 
removes  the  difficulty  of  the  time  of  the  Pass- 
over. 

We  do  not  profess  to  have  reached  the  final 
solution  of  this  interesting  problem,  but  we 
hope  that  this  essay  tends  in  the  direction  toward 
such  a  solution.  Space  would  not  allow  of  stat- 
ing all  the  arguments  against  the  Johannine  ori- 
gin of  this  Gospel.  But  we  have  noticed  the 
principal  ones, —  those  based  both  on  external 
and  internal  grounds.  The  result  of  this  exami- 
nation has  brought  us  to  the  belief  that  no  his- 
toric fact  of  authorship  stands  on  a  firmer  basis 
than  this,  and  that  the  long-received  opinion  of 
the  Christian  Church  is  not  likely  to  be  essen- 
tially altered.  Were  it  otherwise,  it  would  seem 
to  us  one  of  the  greatest  misfortunes  which 
could  befall  Christianity.  The  Fourth  Gospel 
will  be  studied  more  thoroughly  and  affection- 
ately, not  as  a  perfectly  literal  transcript  of  a 
divine  revelation,  but  as  full  of  the  highest  spir- 
itual life,  and  as  bringing  us  more  closely  than 
any  other  into  communion  with  the  inmost  mind 
and  heart  of  Jesus. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


nNlar'53Cn 

m     ^  1953  LU 


KaiG*D  i 

'EC 


YB 


27645 


